Debate contribution: Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026
Debate contribution by Miss Jemma Dolan on .
- MLA
- Miss Jemma Dolan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 10 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5436693
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for bringing the regional rates order for 2026-27 to the House. As the only major tax over which the Executive have control, the regional rate is a vital source of income that supports the delivery of our public services. When setting the rates annually, it is important that a balance be achieved that recognises the circumstances that local businesses and households are experiencing while providing funding that helps sustain the front-line services that people rely on every day. An increase of 3% in the regional rate for businesses and of 5% in the domestic regional rate, when combined with the district rate, will raise over £1·6 billion, which will be used to invest in areas such as the health service, public transport and education. It will help support parents with childcare costs and deliver programmes that tackle serious issues in our society, including ending violence against women and girls. As we discuss the rates for the forthcoming financial year, I am also conscious that the Department is involved in a systematic review of all rates supports to ensure that we maximise the intervention that we provide to support our local economy and raise revenue to deliver public services. Small to medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy, providing jobs and services. Measures such as the small business rate relief scheme and the Back in Business scheme are therefore important parts of the overall rating system. As an elected rep for a large rural constituency, I recognise the value that the rates exemption for rural ATMs has provided communities with by helping them retain access to cash at a time when we see banks abandon our high streets and villages. With many households continuing to struggle with the costs of daily living, which have been further exacerbated by recent events in the Middle East, continuing with relief measures that help protect the most vulnerable in our society is also welcome.
324 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 (0.96).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.50 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.28 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.22 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:12 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.