Debate contribution: Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 10 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5436703
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I want to speak against the Executive's proposal to increase rates. It is not inevitable that the only available option is higher rates for households or the collapse of public services. A 5% increase in rates for domestic properties, alongside the discrepancy of a 3% increase for non-domestic properties, has not been explained, nor has the Minister outlined his rationale for that. It is also worth putting this rates increase in the context of the rates revaluation. The Minister backtracked on his plans after a backlash from Hospitality Ulster and withdrew his proposal for the rates revaluation. I ask the Minister directly: what is it going to take for you to look again and reverse the decision to increase domestic rates? How many stories of people struggling to pay their bills will you have to hear before you abandon this proposal? Or do you abandon proposals only when groups such as Hospitality Ulster speak out? Minister, you always ask about ideas and suggestions for revenue raising — you will probably come on to that — and where that might come from. I do not have the access to the staff and good people that you do, but I will give you one example that I have raised with you before. The income of the top 100 companies in the North has increased to £1·8 billion over the past year. Minister, I do not know why you are averse to tackling that through the rates system. Having raised that with you before, the answer that I received was that a rates review was happening. With respect, Minister, people do not need another review. Rather, they need action to tackle that naked profiteering. The Chair of the Finance Committee talked about the £47 million in extra finance that may be brought about as a result of this increase. To put that in context, it is almost half of what the Finance Department gives out every single year under the industrial derating scheme, which is a handout to big multinational corporations, many of which are engaged in, to put it mildly, questionable human rights practices. Bills, mortgages and rents are up, and it looks as though MLAs' wages are set to go up. If you are a public- or private-sector worker, however, your income is down for the most part. There is no mention of from where income can be generated. Hundreds of millions of pounds, every single year, go from the Executive through the Department for Communities to landlords in order to subsidise rent increases, because the Executive refuse to implement rent controls. Hundreds of millions of pounds have come from Barnett consequentials as a result of the increase in the special educational needs and disability funding for councils in England, but will that go towards helping families, workers and communities? It is going to pay off the Treasury reserve claim, which is absolutely absurd. I have one final point to make, which the Minister may address in his winding-up speech. It is worth noting that when Amazon had a facility in Belfast over a period of four or five years — several years at least — it paid a total of £1·6 million in rates. That is where you get the money from. Amazon is the world's largest company and the biggest company in human history, but it pays a tiny fraction of its income and profits on rates. Again, Minister, you do not need a review to tackle companies such as that. You need to make a decision on this stuff. I welcome the fact that the Opposition will vote against the rates increase today.
605 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: 0.05 (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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.67 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.31 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.