Debate contribution: Rating Policy: Strategic Road Map

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 18 November 2025.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

18 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statements

Heading

Rating Policy: Strategic Road Map

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5243987

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There has been engagement on that through a previous review. While the Older People's Commissioner can obviously speak for herself, the commission is on record as saying that the review and proposals that we have brought forward are workable. Protections are in place for the most vulnerable in our society, and older people will come under those protections if the changes that we propose bring them into a category for that. That engagement has proven worthwhile, both to the commission, hopefully, and to my officials for planning a way forward on the proposal. As I said in my statement, change is difficult, but we have to do things differently and, as an Executive, look at areas where we can raise additional finances. I believe that the changes that I have proposed are fair and equitable and have protections in place for the vulnerable.

Some of the changes are possible with the non-domestic vacant rating policy. We have to identify finances to go towards more support for small businesses through the small business rate relief scheme. I could come to the Chamber and say, "I want to do this, but I need more money", I could look at myself and say, "Can you give me more money?", or I could bring forward proposals that identify from where within the current system we could raise finances that are fair and equitable and put protections in place, and we could then move forward in that direction. We have not yet had discussion or agreement at the Executive on the proposals. I continue to hope that that paper will be presented and that we can have discussion and make progress on it. I think that it is fair and equitable. If others have alternative proposals, I am open to hearing those as well.

It is worth noting that 75% of our small businesses receive support through the rates system. It costs the Executive somewhere in the region of, I think, a quarter of a billion pounds annually. That includes pubs and the hospitality sector, so quite a significant support package is in place. However, I thought that it was only right and proper that, given that Scotland and England are going through a process and will garner data and information that is similar to what we require for our system, we await their review. There is no point in my duplicating work that is going on elsewhere at this stage. Work is about to start, I understand. We will garner the information and challenges from that and see how we can support our business or what changes need to be made through that. I can understand some of the frustration that is in sectors out there about this, but we have to work our way through those processes and be mindful that significant supports are already in place.

That is a very innovative way to move forward and encourage our businesses that want to expand to do so. Quite understandably, when a business owner is looking at their future business plans and to expand, they will have to take into account whether their rates will go up as a result of that and whether, while they are establishing that expansion of their business, they will be able to afford it. If the proposal goes through, we will say to businesses, "Yes, move ahead with that expansion and create a larger premises. We will support you, at least in the first year of that expansion, in relation to your rates. We won't charge you for the additional space that you have". That will allow them time to develop that expansion of their business. If we can encourage more businesses to expand physically, that will be good news for our construction sector and our economy in general. I am delighted to be able to bring forward the proposal, and I hope that it will move forward quite quickly.

Taxation has a number of policy intentions. One is, obviously, to raise revenue. Another is to support habits that a Government want to progress. The revitalisation of our town centres, city centres and villages is important. Non-domestic properties lying vacant is a blight. The proposal fits in with work that other Ministers are doing. As I said in my statement, all rating policies will be reviewed over the next number of years. That review will include whatever support or lack of support is in place at that stage. We want to see properties being brought back into use. The Communities Minister is facing challenges with social housing and housing. If I can assist in a way that brings properties back into use, whether for housing, commercial use or something else, I will do so.

I am not exactly sure of the point that the Member is making. Apologies. All businesses pay some form of rates, with the exception of charity shops. My intention through the small business rate relief scheme is to support more businesses by looking at support from 20% up to 50% and looking at what categories those fall into. Non-domestic vacant rating is currently sitting at 50%. I want to see that rise over a number of years up to 75%, and then up to 100%. When that is fully operational, it will bring us in around £20 million extra. I will provide further clarity to the Member if I have not correctly understood the point that he made. My understanding is that all businesses are involved in the payment of rates of some kind. This is about how we support small businesses, enhance our town centres and city centres and move away from the blight of vacant properties.

Rent levels are driven by the market and what people are prepared to pay, and I have limited ability to change that. However, if we support more businesses through the small business rate relief scheme, the burden of the rent that is placed on them will be lessened, because their rates will be reduced.

If they are prepared to expand, we will also support them through that proposal. There is a balance to be achieved in all of those things, but looking to expand the small business rate relief scheme is a good way forward.

Across a wide range of topics, challenges and opportunities facing the Assembly and the Executive, we need to work in partnership with one another. Doing so will mean that there has to be give and take on all sides and being open to ideas and discussions around proposals on all of these things. The reality is that no one is expecting the Chancellor to announce a Budget that will alleviate the pressures that our public services, business communities and workers and families are under. Therefore, the Executive have to look at new and imaginative ways in which we can help ourselves. I believe that the proposals that I have outlined today and the proposals in the previous paper that I put before the Executive are imaginative and assist the Executive to meet their challenges and opportunities moving forward.

As the Member knows from a previous debate here, the rates debt has reduced by 20%. We continue to take action on the rates debt. I want to see further reduction in that, but, when you are collecting the scale of revenue that we are collecting, there will be a certain amount of debt because of factors including representations from MLAs to my Department around trying to assist ratepayers who find themselves facing genuine challenges, so there is a balance to be got in all of those things. However, there are also those who will not pay or refuse to pay, and they will be pursued vigorously through the courts. As for the estimated £20 million in revenue collection, at this stage, I am not sure what percentage will be used for what the Member has outlined. However, if we are bringing in significant extra revenue, there is a cost associated with collecting that revenue, but, as long as we collect more revenue in a fair and equitable way, the Member will, I think, accept that there are costs associated with that.

The non-domestic vacant rating policy that I am announcing today and the proposals for it will encourage property owners to make those properties usable again, whether that is by reletting it to a business or a business entering it because of the other small business rate relief enhancements that we want to do or because of the expansion of businesses or whether it is driven through the fact that a property owner may say to himself, "Well, if I continue to leave this former business property empty, I will have to pay increased rates on it. Why do I not use it for housing? Why do I not convert it into property?". Will it be more attractive when they put it on the market and housing associations perhaps purchase those properties moving forward? The proposals that I put before us today open up the property market to a challenge and an opportunity that, thus far, is only lying vacant and empty.

Those protections remain in place and will continue to protect those people. If people find themselves having to pay a greater percentage of rates, because the maximum capital value rises, and if their income qualifies them for protections, those protections will continue. The Older People's Commissioner recognised that protections are in place in his response to the consultation. Both the proposals that the Member refers to and the proposals that I am announcing today are fair and equitable and protect the most vulnerable in our society.

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, what would be the appropriateness of the Opposition coming forward with any proposals or any idea?

1,631 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:50 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