Debate contribution: Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5436695
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Alliance Party will support the regional rates order and the subsequent orders that will be debated today on the Back in Business scheme and rural ATMs, as we recognise that rates revenue is essential to funding vital public services at Executive and local council level. We are all acutely aware, however, of the need to balance the demands facing our public services and our constituents during the current economic crisis. As has already been said, that crisis has been compounded in recent weeks. I welcome the Minister's decision to decouple the non-domestic rate from the domestic rate. That goes some way to recognising the acute financial pressures that our business community faces, which, again, are challenges that have been compounded by the Labour Government's changes to employers' National Insurance contributions. I have consistently spoken about the pressures that face hospitality, retail and leisure businesses on our high streets and the fact that those sectors have not benefited from equivalent reliefs that had been made available in other parts of the UK in recent years. Although it is, of course, welcome that pubs and the hospitality sector are not facing into this rating cycle with the valuations that were previously proposed as part of Reval2026, the shambolic management of that process has hammered confidence, created winners and losers and heaped further uncertainty on publicans and hoteliers in particular. That cack-handed approach could and should have been avoided. The Minister was aware of the emerging valuation impacts on different business sectors in late 2025 but appears to have done nothing in the meantime to mitigate the monumental impact on hospitality businesses. Other jurisdictions have recognised the need for additional support or transitional relief. In Northern Ireland, the Minister seemed to believe that the changes could have been absorbed overnight. The Minister must stop passing the buck to businesses, demanding that they come forward with the evidence that is required. He must stop hiding behind reviews that are ongoing in Scotland and England and instead engage fully with our hospitality sector and commission his own review ahead of striking the regional rate for next year. We have a window of opportunity now to do it. From these Benches, we have consistently called for a short, sharp independent review of the rating process and rate reliefs to ensure that the system is fair, progressive and fit for purpose and can support the needs of our people and public services. In fairness, over the past year, the Minister has proposed making some modest changes to the rating system through small business rate relief, the max value cap and the early payment discount. Those changes would make our system more progressive and fair, and they are changes that I would support. The latter two, though, appear to have fallen victim to Executive dysfunction. If we cannot make the most modest of changes and reforms to our rating system and cannot use the powers that we have to deliver better outcomes for the people whom we represent, what message does that send to Treasury about our ability to grapple with greater fiscal devolution or, indeed, to take difficult decisions around reforming public services more broadly? Whilst a majority in the Chamber will likely support the rates order for 2026-27, it is vital that we see significant reform to the rating system in the year ahead. Some have criticised the rates increase before us, but they have offered no alternatives, no solutions and no plan for how they would fund public services, given the many demands that face the Executive.
593 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.