Debate contribution: Unpaid Rates

Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on 21 October 2025.

MLA

Mr Brian Kingston

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

21 October 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Unpaid Rates

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5197756

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all who contributed to the debate on the motion, and I thank those who indicated their support for our motion and those who have made other observations. It has been an interesting debate. I think that everyone has agreed that the pressures and demands on the public purse in Northern Ireland are vast and are well known to us all and to the general public. Many Members pointed out that the only means by which the Assembly can raise taxation for public services, in addition to the block grant that we receive from His Majesty's Treasury, is through the rates as a property tax on residential and commercial premises. Therefore it is essential that we ensure that everyone pays their fair share, in view of the need for public finance and fairness to everyone. In the previous financial year, £18 million of unpaid rates were written off. That is a substantial amount — £18 million in one year. Our motion notes with concern that, over the past six years, the total written off was £82 million. That is a shocking statistic when we think about the need for those public funds. Our motion asks for two actions from the Finance Minister. First, to:

"increase the target figure for gross collectable rates",

which is currently 93%, and, secondly, to:

"present a range of new and concrete proposals to reduce the level of rates that are unpaid or written off".

The Minister mentioned some measures, and we would be interested in seeing those in writing. The bottom line is that, as the motion states, it is unfair that law-abiding people pay their rates while others fail to pay and, ultimately, have the slate wiped clean. A number of Members spoke of the need to be aware of the value of repayment plans and support where people have difficulty paying their rates. Absolutely: they should be in place when people are in financial difficulties, rather than seeing businesses go bankrupt and, therefore, lose. Anyone who is involved in a business will know that, at some stage, debts have to be written off. At a time when proposals have been brought forward for charging ratepayers more, the public expect us to exhaust all avenues to ensure that the rates that are due are being paid, and paid fairly by all. My colleague Diane Forsythe said that half of the £145 million that has been carried forward from previous years is being examined for potential legal action. Why only half? We have to ask that question, and the public will ask why it is not a larger amount.

I will, yes.

I heard a number of things about people who are having difficulty paying their rates, but the question remains: why is more not being done to collect? The distinction between those who cannot pay and those who will not pay is too arbitrary. There are people in the middle who are reluctant to pay, and people need to be put under pressure to pay, in the interest of fairness and the public purse. Certainly, measures might need to be put in place over time, but if people are swinging the lead, that should not be tolerated.

Mr Gaston mentioned a number of cases in which he would be sympathetic to people having difficulty paying their rates, and he highlighted one case in which a significant rates bill is outstanding. That is unacceptable. That case should continue to be pursued and the rates brought in for it — there is no doubt about that. We stand by our view on the 93% target. I heard the Minister say that he did not feel that it was comparable to England, where the rates collection rate is 96%. It is our duty to push to increase the 93%. If that was what was raised, we would have £105 million not collected each year, so we are actually exceeding the 93%. Therefore, why not increase the target? Why have a target that is below what is actually being collected?

Do I have 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker? Is that correct? Deirdre Hargey and Jemma Dolan pointed out that the £1·63 billion of rates collected last year was the highest amount ever. They said that measures needed to be put in place to support those in financial difficulty, so that people are not pursued with unnecessary rigour if they are unable to pay. Eóin Tennyson also commented on the increase in rates collection in recent years. That shows the importance of setting targets. He wanted to distinguish between those who will not pay and those who cannot pay. He commented on the 10-year review announced by the previous Finance Minister and said that it is taking too long. Matthew O'Toole expressed support for the motion and then spoke at length about revenue-raising powers. He finally returned to the motion's theme in his final sentence to support the concept that more rates should be raised.

You had quite a bit of time to speak, and you did not really address the motion. Will you address it now?

I have already commented that that rates bill needs to be paid and should be pursued rigorously. I thought that you were going to speak about the motion, but you have decided not to. My colleague Harry Harvey said that funds are needed for all the actions and priorities in the Programme for Government and that, as we know, every Minister is crying out for more funding to enable those ambitions to be met. He also said that the 93% target is too low and that, while other proposals have been put forward by the previous and current Finance Ministers on the maximum capital value of property and on reducing the early payment discount, first and foremost, the public expect to see us bring in what is legally due under the current system, and that must be the priority. I thank Claire Sugden for her contribution. She wanted to see reform and more money for public finances. In closing, I thank everyone for their contribution to the debate. We think that there is strong support for our central theme, and we hope that the motion will be approved by the House.

1,045 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:35 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification