Debate contribution: Reval2026: Impact on Hospitality Sector
Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .
- MLA
- Mr John O'Dowd
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 26 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Questions for Urgent Oral Answer
- Heading
- Reval2026: Impact on Hospitality Sector
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5341043
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Regular revaluations are a central pillar of the rating system here. Reval2026 will redistribute business rates in the fairest possible way, using the most up-to-date rental values based on market evidence at a point in time, to ensure that properties are contributing on a consistent and fair basis. Revaluation does not increase the overall amount raised from rates. Business representatives have consistently called for more frequent revaluations. The draft values now reflect market conditions on 1 April 2024. Overall, the values of non-domestic properties have increased by 15% since the previous revaluation, with around two thirds of ratepayers potentially seeing little or no difference in their rates bills as a result, including many high street shops in towns and villages. However, as with all revaluations, some ratepayers will pay more. Pub and hotel sector discounts applied during the previous revaluation, which took place during the pandemic, have been removed. In some cases, increases also reflect increased trading performance and material changes to premises, such as extensions or refurbishments, resulting in higher rental values. It is important to highlight the fact that a percentage increase in a property value will not lead to a rates bill rising by the same percentage, as poundages will be adjusted ahead of the rates bills being issued and will take account of the growth in property values at Reval2026. Draft values have been published to allow ratepayers to plan for the change on 1 April. I encourage anyone who has not previously engaged with Land and Property Services (LPS) to take the opportunity to do so now and share any evidence that may help to reflect their individual circumstances. The hospitality sector has, to date, been less likely to provide accounts information, with only 30% of it responding. We are keen to hear from businesses. Any additional information that they provide will be carefully considered by my valuation officials.
The Member states that something has clearly gone wrong, but he did not state what that was. I have heard commentary and discussion on the matter, and understandably so, but, when the Member comes out with a statement such as that, saying that something has clearly gone wrong with the rates valuation process, he needs to back it up with evidence.
I have the evidence. That is the difference between me and you.
A set process is in place; it is carried out by the valuators. That process has been conducted. I recommend this to the Member and to any other Member of the House: if any business approaches you and is concerned about the revaluation, the first thing that you should ask them is, "Have you provided to Land and Property Services the information requested from you, at least 16 months ago? If you have not provided it, there is still an opportunity for you to provide that information before 1 April. If you provide the information to Land and Property Services before 1 April, it will be able to look at your case to see whether there has been a fair valuation and everything has been taken into account, and there may be a change to your valuation". The Member cannot stand in the Chamber and say that something has clearly gone wrong without backing it up with the information.
546 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: 0.03 (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 (0.85).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 14:31 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.