Debate contribution: Infrastructure Levy
Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .
- MLA
- Ms Liz Kimmins
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 19 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Infrastructure Levy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5322333
Read the official Assembly record
Text
To date, I have not had any discussion with the Minister of Finance regarding an infrastructure levy. Any decision to apply an additional levy to rates bills would be a cross-cutting matter to be considered at Executive level, and substantive changes would need to be made to rating legislation and the rating administration system in respect of such a change. I have met the NI Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Construction Employers Federation and the NI Federation of Housing Associations to consider their report that proposed increasing rates by means of a hypothecated infrastructure levy to fund waste water infrastructure. For me, that represents a form of water charging, which, I have said clearly, I will not introduce. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that I will not add to the financial burden faced by people here by imposing any form of water charges. I recognise, as we all do, the constrained financial situation. We face that collectively, with difficult decisions being required, and will continue to look at innovative, new ways of maximising the delivery of vital infrastructure. As I mentioned, we will do that through the three-pronged approach, which I do not need to go into the details of again. We will also seek additional funding where possible, whether through the Budget or the monitoring rounds. Whilst that levy has been put forward as a solution, it is one that, I think, would lead to water charges. However, such a levy concerns rates, so I could not make a decision on that. As I said, it is an Executive matter.
264 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:16 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.