Official Report: Tuesday 18 November 2025

Mr Delargy: Last week's news that the price of school meals will increase is another blow for hard-working parents. The extra £10 a month per child will push many families further into food poverty. Let me be abundantly clear: hiking the price of school meals is a political choice to shift the Department's budgetary pressures on to the shoulders of ordinary, hard-working families. For years, Audit Office reports have highlighted inefficiencies and waste in the Education Authority (EA) and the Department of Education, yet no action has been taken. Ordinary families are now picking up the bill for years of poor financial management by successive DUP Ministers of Education.

As a teacher, I know that many hard-pressed families work hard to make ends meet. It is not a luxury to provide a hot dinner at lunchtime but a necessity. In addition, the Minister has rolled back on making school uniforms more affordable, is considering hiking the fees for music tuition in schools further and has failed to roll out an affordable childcare strategy in full. Is it any wonder that ordinary families are struggling? This is about cutting services for those families who can least afford them. The Minister can reverse the policies. He can show children and families that he is serious about creating an education system that provides equal opportunities and that allows children to flourish, regardless of their socio-economic background. The Minister needs to listen to parents. He needs to listen to parents in Derry, to parents in his constituency and to parents right across the North.

Mr Clarke: Like many in the Chamber, I was invited to the Men's Alliance NI domestic violence event that was held on Saturday in Writers' Square in Belfast. It is very disappointing that Members across the Chamber did not support that event. Many have much to say about domestic violence, but one could be forgiven for thinking that, because it was a men's event, they decided not to attend.

Thirty-five per cent of reported cases of domestic violence are suffered by men. That is a startling statistic. It is difficult for all those who suffer from domestic violence to come forward, but most Members would accept that it is more so for men because of pride.

When I attended the event, I was surprised, because it was led by women. There is nothing more powerful than women walking down the street in Belfast with a loud message about domestic violence. To be fair to them, they are against domestic violence against all. I met two young girls who lost their father through domestic violence. They spoke of an incident in which he had been publicly attacked by his ex-partner on a bus service in Belfast. He was too shy to come forward or make a complaint. Unfortunately, that man paid with his life: he was stabbed to death in his bed. In that case, thankfully, someone was brought to justice and will serve 14 years in prison. I am sure that, if that man is looking down on his daughters, he is proud of them for leading the Men's Alliance event in Belfast on Saturday. They carried that banner not only in memory of their father but for all the other men and others who suffer from domestic violence.

I spoke to others at the event who described themselves as feminists but put the issue of domestic violence at the forefront. One of their banners stated:

Another banner called for more support services for men, and I agree with that. We have not got the services that we really need in Northern Ireland, and it is only through the efforts of the Men's Alliance in raising awareness that we know that. We need more support services for men, and we need shelters for men as much as we need them for women.

It would be great if, some day, we could talk in the Chamber about there being no domestic violence because we had got rid of it. Unfortunately, that is not the case: it is here, and it looks as though it is here to stay. We have to do more for all victims: be they men or women, we need to do more.

Mr Donnelly: I recognise the success of Antrim Coast Dance Academy in Larne at the recent World Irish Dance Championships in Salthill, Galway. The academy brought 27 dancers to the event, and every one of them placed in the top 10 in their category. That alone says a lot about the hard work and commitment of those young people and the support that they receive from their families and teachers.

Seven dancers from the academy came home as world title winners. Eva Quinlan became the under-9s intermediate world champion. Bailey Smith won the under-11s primary world title. Lacey Mitchell took the under-11s intermediate title after only one year of dancing, which is an incredible achievement for anyone who is starting out. Grace McKeown became the under-14s intermediate world champion. Grace lives with mild learning disabilities and had struggled to find her place until she discovered dance, which makes her success all the more meaningful. Erin Millar won the under-14s open world title. Melissa Galway became the under-16s open champion, winning her second world title. She also achieved nine GCSE A* grades at St Killian's College, Carnlough, this year. Jodi McCourt won the under-21 ladies' open title and has not been beaten in any competition in the past three years.

The academy has been running for 10 years and is led by two dedicated teachers. It has about 30 dancers aged between three and 21. What they have built gives children and young people the space to grow in confidence and talent, and their results in Galway show how far that has taken them. I offer my warmest congratulations to every dancer who was involved and to the teachers and parents who give so much time and care to help them thrive.

Mr McHugh: Tá na dálaí tiomána ag gabháil in olcas de réir mar atáimid ag druidim le tréimhse na Nollag: tá an lá ag cailleadh, bíonn na bealaí fliuch, bíonn sioc agus oighear orthu agus bíonn níos mó tráchta ar na bealaí mar gheall ar dhaoine ag déanamh shiopadóireacht na Nollag nó ag gabháil ag amharc ar a ndaoine muinteartha. Ba mhaith liom aird a tharraignt ar an tsábháilteacht ar bhóithre inniu i gcomhar le Lá Domhanda i gCuimhne ar Dhaoine a d’Fhulaing de dheasca Timpistí ar Bhóithre. Ardaím an t-ábhar sin, ní hé amháin le cuimhneamh ar dhaoine a d’fhulaing de dheasca timpistí ar bhóithre ach le húsáideoirí bóithre a spreagadh le bheith ar a seacht n-airdeall thar thréimhse na Nollag.

Fuair muid scéala uafásach, ag deireadh na seachtaine, go bhfuair cúigear daoine faoi 25 bliana d’aois bás i dtimpiste i gcontae Lú. Gabhaim mo chomhbhrón lena muintir agus guím ar son na ndaoine a tugadh chuig an ospidéal i ndiaidh an teagmhais. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a n-anam.

An té atá ag gabháil an bóthar, ba chóir dó ceann cúrsa a bhaint amach, pé acu coisí, rothaí, tiománaí nó paisinéir é. Cé go spreagaimid úsáideoirí bóithre le céimeanna riachtanacha a ghlacadh, ní mór dúinn, sa Teach seo, céimeanna riachtanacha a ghlacadh fosta lenár n-úsáideoirí bóithre a chosaint, go háirithe i gcás Bhóthar A5. De réir an fheachtais Is Leor Sin, fuair 57 nduine bás ó cuireadh tús ar fheachtas Bhóthar A5. Sin 57 nduine nár bhain ceann cúrsa amach. Is minic agus is rómhinic a tharla tubaiste agus crá croí ar Bhóthar A5, rud a d’fhág teaghlaigh ar fud an oileáin faoi choscairt. Caithfidh gach duine againn bheith ag tacú leis an phobal agus leis na daoine sin a chaill daoine muinteartha agus bheith ag obair le chéile lena chinntiú go ndéanfar an bóthar sin. Sábhálfaidh an feachtas sin beatha daoine. Leanfaidh Sinn Féin de bheith ag obair le feachtasóirí, le páirtithe eile agus leis an Aire Bonneagair lena chinntiú go gcuirfear an tionscadal ríthábhachtach sin i gcrích. Abraimis ar lá seo an chuimhneacháin go ndéanfaimid ár seacht ndícheall leis an fheachtas sin a chur i gcrích.

Mr Brett: On 16 October, when the Minister for the Economy issued her politically charged ministerial statement attacking the state of Israel and undermining the aerospace, defence and space sector in Northern Ireland, this party made it clear that we would challenge that decision at every possible turn. That is why, jointly with the Ulster Unionist Party and Traditional Unionist Voice, this party tabled a call-in petition to the Business Office in relation to that decision. We warmly welcome the fact that a ruling has been made that that decision must now come before the Executive. As we made clear at the time, the attempted decision by the Minister for the Economy was controversial and significant.

For the avoidance of doubt, Sinn Féin does not and will not ever set UK trade policy. That is a reserved matter for His Majesty's Government, and the DUP call-in justifies that decision. The value of the aerospace, defence and space sector in Northern Ireland is £2·2 billion a year, and it employs 10,000 people. The Minister for the Economy is entitled to her personal views on that industry, but she is not entitled to use her office to undermine those jobs and investments. In every corner of Northern Ireland, people from all backgrounds, traditions and none work in that sector. We will not allow their jobs to be put at risk by a Minister who fears more from attack from parties to my left than from delivering in her role as Minister for the Economy.

While others may talk Northern Ireland down, try to cost us jobs and not welcome investment, this party will proudly take every opportunity to speak up for the people of Northern Ireland and ensure that our economy continues to flourish.

Ms Nicholl: People come to us MLAs with a number of matters, including potholes in their street and issues with housing, health and education. It is a privilege to represent them, but, every so often, you get a case that really stays with you.

About 11 months ago, I met an extraordinary woman whose husband was tragically killed while cycling. When you speak to her, you can feel the grief and the love that she had for her husband, and the gap that he left in their family is much felt.

The trauma of his death, however, was compounded by the fact that the person who was driving and who killed him was not meant to be on the road. He had been told that he could not drive any more. It is clear that there is a gap in the system. In some cases, medical professionals will report drivers to the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) if they suspect that that they will not give up their licence themselves. In most cases, however, it is left to the individual to contact the DVA. We know enough about human nature and how people behave to know that they will do the easiest thing. In this case, the man was told that he was not allowed to drive because of a medical condition, but he continued to drive. As a result, a family lost a cherished father, husband and friend.

About 11 months ago, I made a Member's statement in the House about this matter, about how there is a gap and how, by closing it, we can help to save lives. Since then, along with my constituent, we have made steady progress, having spoken to the Infrastructure Minister, who was deeply sympathetic and empathetic, as well as the BMA and the Courts and Tribunals Service. We have written to the Department of Health, and I understand that the Health and Infrastructure Ministers have discussed the matter. We need to keep it on the agenda, however, because the situation needs to stop. There must be other people in our society who have been affected in the same way, and I would love for them to reach out to me so that we can build more of a campaign around the issue.

There is no reason why medical professionals cannot report directly to the DVA because they already do it in some instances. Let us make it the rule instead of the exception. This woman, who is my constituent, is extraordinary and is so dedicated to changing the law so that no one else has to go through the pain that she did. I hope that as Members, we can work together to help save lives as a result.

Mr Gaston: Northern Ireland's fishing industry is standing on the edge of a cliff. Unless there is a swift and decisive intervention, we may soon witness the collapse of one of our oldest and proudest but most vulnerable industries. Last week, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea issued its latest scientific advice. It proposes a staggering 70% reduction in the total allowable catch of mackerel in the north-east Atlantic in 2026. At the same time, when it comes to nephrops in the Irish Sea's functional unit 15, which are the lifeblood of our small and medium-sized vessels, the advice is for a 35% cut from just over 10,000 tonnes to 6,493 tonnes.

Those are not minor adjustments, but seismic shocks that hit two species on which Northern Ireland's fleet most depends. Those cuts mean something very simple for crews in Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie. They mean that boats are tied up, income is slashed and processors are running idle. Once a vessel is sold off, a processor closes its doors or a skilled team is broken up, the industry cannot simply be switched back on again when the science changes. The capacity is gone, the skills are gone and the supply chain is gone, and the fishing community is left hollowed out.

This crisis has been compounded by a legacy of disadvantage. Vessels cannot simply stream to alternative grounds. Fuel costs, long transits, crewing pressures and the realities of the Irish Sea make that impossible. Add to that the continued regulatory constraints of the protocol and the Windsor framework and you have a fleet that is exposed on every side, scientifically, economically and politically.

We need to know what assessment Mr Muir has made of the combined impact of those cuts. What defence of Northern Ireland's share has been mounted? Let us be clear, Mr Muir: if those proposals proceed unchallenged, and if your Department fails to act, the devastation for the fishing industry will be real and unrepairable.

Mr Carroll: It has been well documented how important speech and language assistance and support can be for children and young people who have additional communication needs. There is no doubt that investment in speech and language provision through well-paid staff and appropriate support can and does have transformative and life-changing impacts for those young people. We often hear in this Building about the need for early intervention and preventative work to take place. Sometimes it does happen, but quite often it does not. Parents and carers often face barriers to securing the appropriate setting and support, including community support, for their children with additional communication needs. I do not think that it has to be like that.

Today, I pay tribute to all the people working and delivering speech and language units and supports in other settings and to all the young people who avail themselves of those very important services. Disgracefully, only four speech and language-specific units exist across Belfast, and, today, I speak to the issue of pupils in St Teresa's Primary School. I know that the parents and carers are watching this morning. St Teresa's is an excellent mainstream school in west Belfast that provides a speech and language unit to children who need that support and assistance. Shockingly, the support and service stop when the children and young people finish primary 4. There has been no explanation or rationale for why that important and crucial service stops at some arbitrary, plucked-out-of-the-sky date. As things stand, come June next year, 12 pupils will have no idea of where they will go. They will have to leave St Teresa's Primary School with no idea of what support will be in place. For some, that will be their third school in four years, which is totally unacceptable.

St Teresa's Primary School supports the call for speech and language provision to remain on site for young people up until primary 7. Nobody, especially children with additional communication needs, deserves to be uprooted and removed from an educational setting just to save pennies and pounds. A small investment in staff at the school for services to be extended for another three years would be absolutely transformative for the pupils, their families and, obviously, the wider community. This morning, I call on the Department of Education, the Education Authority and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust to urgently intervene and work together to provide some clarity and assurances for those families and the wider community to make sure that those services exist for another three years up until primary 7. They say, if it is not broke, do not try to fix it. This service certainly is not broken. It is working and it needs to be extended, and clarity and security needs to be provided. If Departments do not respond, we are getting ready —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Carroll: — to march, to fight and to kick up a fuss about this.

Ms Sheerin: Last week, I visited the West Bank as part of an international delegation to discuss what is happening in Palestine. The West Bank is often referred to as the "normal" part of Palestine. Of course, there is nothing normal about a place where the Israeli settlers grade people as if they were meat. There is nothing normal about a system that determines your value on your identity. Even before we got there, in Jordan, I met Palestinians who had never been in their own country because they are not allowed. From my experience of the Jordanian border crossing, unpleasant as that was, it is not the hostility of the Israeli officials that I will remember, and not the dry heat, but the warmth and kindness and spirit of young Palestinians who went out of their way to make our experience easier, lifting our suitcases, pointing us in the right direction and trying to ease my obvious apprehension at being faced with a border crossing that I had no knowledge of prior to going through it. We then got into Ramallah and were told, "It's not that bad here". How twisted a world we live in when the barometer for suffering is babies starving to death in a place where the water is turned on once a week, where you can only go to work through border checkpoints and where you cannot leave the country. I met families who have never left the country because they are not allowed to. We then got to the university where we were having our congress, and I heard from students who had already been arrested and detained without trial, because getting educated in the West Bank is an act of resistance. I heard that they had buried five students from their one university in the past four years. Again, they said, "It is not that bad here". In Gaza, they knocked all their schools and universities to the ground, and yet such was the determination of those people that they walked for miles, set up school camps and educated their young people in the face of a genocide. We spoke to young people who told us how planting crops, as the Israelis steal the land from under them, is an act of resistance. I will carry those stories with me and continue to be a voice for the Palestinian people who seemingly cannot be heard by the rest of the Western world.

Mr Kingston: This week is Road Safety Week, which is held annually across the United Kingdom on the third week of November. The annual campaign, organised by the road safety charity Brake, focuses on raising awareness and promoting life-saving messages to reduce casualties on our roads.

Our thoughts and prayers remain very much with all those affected by the shocking tragedy that occurred on Saturday, when five young adults, aged between 21 and 23, lost their lives in a road traffic accident near Dundalk. On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I express our deepest sympathies and condolences to their families and friends. The scale of that tragedy is chilling. We do not know the circumstances, which are under investigation, but the devastating outcome is a reminder to us all of the dangers, particularly when travelling at speed, and the need for concentration and caution when driving, because lives can be suddenly and utterly changed or ended.

The theme of Road Safety Week changes each year, but it often focuses on critical areas, such as the devastating consequences of speeding; vehicle safety and checking that vehicles are roadworthy; using modern safety technology; and the personal responsibility of every road user when it comes to their safety and that of others with whom they share the road. We are told that 1,671 people died on UK roads last year, which is between four and five people every day. Nearly 29,000 people suffered serious life-changing injuries last year, which is almost 80 people every day. The theme for 2025 is "Safe vehicles save lives". It highlights the importance of maintaining vehicles to ensure that they are roadworthy and utilising modern technology, such as automated driver assistance systems, to prevent collisions.

I expect that all drivers have had the experience of someone driving behind them, particularly on country roads, and causing them to feel under pressure to drive that bit faster. This week is a reminder to us all never to be pressured into driving at a higher speed that would cause us to feel not in control or unsafe and never to be the one who pressures another driver for the sake of arriving a few seconds or minutes earlier. It is better to arrive a bit later but to do so safely.

Mr McNulty: I will speak about a deeply troubling story that appears today on the front page of 'The Irish News' and that strikes at the heart of what our health service is supposed to represent: dignity, care and compassion. According to the report, a man who was gravely ill with cancer and connected to an IV drip was forced to lie on the floor at Altnagelvin Area Hospital for over 50 hours simply because there were no available beds. That is not a statistic; it is a vulnerable, frightened human being who was without even the most basic comfort of a bed. He was given a blanket and a pillow, but that does not erase the indignity of being made to wait on the floor in a hospital, a place where we entrust our life to others and expect to be treated with care. The Western Health and Social Care Trust acknowledged that its hospitals are under extreme pressure and operating far beyond their funded capacity. However, it is not just an operational issue; it is a profound moral failing.

Reports from oversight bodies warn of systemic problems: patients forced to wait in corridors or in chairs for days; insufficient beds; and a lack of basic dignity. When a health system allows someone in their darkest hour to lie on a hospital floor, we must ask this: have we lost sight of what care truly means? We cannot let that become a new normal. Hospital care in corridors has become too commonplace in Daisy Hill, Craigavon and hospitals across the North. We must demand urgent concrete action, more capacity, better funding, improved infrastructure and, most important, respect for the dignity of every patient.

Mr Frew: The Northern Ireland Assembly passed the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act in 2022. It was a private Member's Bill, but it was fully supported by the Minister for the Economy and the Economy Department, yet we still do not have it enacted. Why is the Minister for the Economy dragging her heels on that important issue?

The Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act creates a right of 10 days' paid leave for all victims of domestic and sexual violence. It was good enough to be voted for and passed in the House, yet the Department for the Economy drags its heels. It was the first legislation of its kind to be passed in the British Isles, yet the Department for the Economy is now failing victims of domestic and sexual violence. Why is that? Regulations should be made immediately to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, to keep them in work and ensure that their workplace is a safe place for them. That is a noble cause, and I will continue to press the Department for the Economy on it.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. That brings to a conclusion Members' statements.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your ruling yesterday that the Economy Minister's decision was significant and controversial, I wish to draw to the Assembly's attention an important clarification letter. Jim Allister MP has received a letter from the Secretary of State in which Mr Benn makes it explicitly clear that international relations are a reserved matter and that negotiations on trade with Israel are conducted by the UK Government on behalf of all parts of the UK. The subject on which the Minister purported to act therefore lies outside her legal competence. In light of that clarification, will you consider the procedural implications for ministerial authority and whether the Assembly was misled as to the scope of devolved powers in that area? Will you also outline what safeguards exist to prevent ministerial overreach when issuing directions to bodies such as Invest NI?

Mr Speaker: In the first instance, I am not sure that that is a point of order. Secondly, I need to clarify that I did not make a ruling that the decision was significant or controversial, because I was not asked to make that ruling. I was asked to make a ruling on whether it was an issue of public importance, and I outlined the reasons why we arrived at that conclusion. It is now a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and it will be left with them to make a decision on how to take it forward after the decision that was made yesterday.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I wish to provide Members with an update on the progress made on the review of the rating system and my intended steps over the coming weeks.

Less than a year ago, it was announced that my Department would undertake a systematic review of all rates supports. Substantial progress has been made to date, with four policy reviews completed. I am accelerating the review process and can confirm today that every rate support will have been reviewed by the end of the 2027-28 rating year. The remaining policy areas will be front-loaded in order of strategic importance within the remaining time frame.

The aim of the process has been and remains to secure positive and progressive changes to the rating system. That need has been echoed strongly by interested parties through the course of significant engagement with my officials. Today, I will outline how I intend to bring about change that will see enhanced support for small businesses, which are the backbone of our local economy; change that tackles the high level of vacancies in our town and city centres; change that supports businesses that are starting out; and change that helps accelerate business growth. I cannot do that in isolation, and I have spoken many times in the House and around the Executive table of the constrained financial environment within which we operate. In terms of how we deliver rating change in such a context, the interlinked nature of rating policy, both domestic and non-domestic, is critical. That is particularly the case as we aim to improve the system with limited resources. Where changes to make the system more progressive can act to deliver change in one area, those savings can then allow us to ease the tax burden on others.

Following the public consultation on increasing the maximum capital value and reducing the early payment discount, which concluded in April, responses were assessed and proposals put forward to the Executive in June for a decision. Those proposals have the potential to unlock £9 million of government spending power. To illustrate the significance of that in rating terms, that £9 million being diverted to the small business rate scheme enhances an existing scheme that costs £22 million and already supports 30,000 ratepayers.

Many in the Chamber have called for additional support for small businesses since the Executive returned last year. The proposals that I am bringing forward pave the way for that while recognising the financial realities within which we are operating. It would be easy for me to set out my policy aims and seek additional funding to support them: that is not what I am doing. Operating a responsive and progressive rating system cannot mean layering additional supports at the cost of other Executive priorities. Instead, we must carefully consider how best the limited support levers available can be applied in the current operating context to best effect. I am not seeking additional funding to enhance support for businesses; instead, I am asking for support to deliver changes in one part of the rating system that allow additional support in another, with the two adjustments operating on a cost-neutral basis. I want to see extra help going to small business properties that provide vital employment and support workers, families and communities. Today's proposals, which stem from the discussions with businesses, align with my desire to deliver positive change for businesses and boost economic growth.

First, I will talk about the small business rate relief scheme. It was clear from the strategic review of that area that there was an appetite among representative bodies, industry and local government for enhanced support to be delivered to small businesses. Our local economy is overwhelmingly made up of SME businesses, and around 90% of them are classified as microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees. I fully endorse such an approach. A sustainable small business sector is at the heart of a thriving economy. It comes as no surprise that other jurisdictions are also supporting that ambition through their own policy proposals.

The analysis from my Department concurred that there was a need to enhance support aimed at bolstering businesses in smaller properties. While the approach taken in other jurisdictions has been to cherry-pick specific sectors, that is often done on the basis of legacy support put in place during the pandemic. I have listened to the views provided and am instead in favour of taking a sector-neutral approach to any enhancement of small business rate support. I want to create an environment that brings businesses into town and city centres. However, I want that to be an environment that creates a level playing field for all types of businesses by enhancing support across business types. I see no hierarchy in need.

I want to encourage business start-ups of any type and to do what we can by lowering operating costs for businesses in that category. There are two methods by which I can deliver an enhancement to the current small business rate relief scheme. The first method is to increase the amount of reductions delivered under the scheme. The current reduction levels of 20%, 25% and 50% have remained static since the scheme was last reviewed in 2012. It is my preference to increase those reduction levels. The second method of enhancement is to increase the upper valuation threshold that applies in the scheme. Again, that upper valuation level has not been increased since 2012 and needs adjusted to modern rental values.

Given that Reval2026 will be the fourth revaluation process in 11 years, it is my preference to raise the rental value thresholds so that they are broadly in line with valuation list growth. I will consult in the next few weeks on both methods in order to continue to allow changes to be made for the next rating year. The scalability pertaining to both forms of enhancement is critical and forms a key part of the discussion. It is no secret that the Executive's finances are under significant pressure at present. I have brought forward proposals on two policy areas that would raise £9 million. Likewise, lowering operating costs through rate support will in itself have the potential to grow the tax base by bringing more businesses into the rating system and generating more revenue in overall terms. Those two factors, plus the fact that changes can be made alongside doing the revaluation exercise, give us an opportunity to make important changes while maintaining the overall level of rating revenue generated through the broader rating system.

I am also willing to consider all ideas on co-funding models from Departments and councils to enhance small business rate relief support. Supporting small businesses should be high on all our agendas, and working in partnership to optimise joint efforts is my preferred approach. My officials are working at pace to put out proposals for consultation between now and the new year in order to get the views of businesses before final proposals are submitted to Executive colleagues for decision.

The progress made on taking forward policy considerations on rate relief demonstrates my commitment to delivering positive change. To be clear, in order to translate policy into action, Members must understand that progressive rating does not mean considering policy proposals in isolation but as a whole.

On the second area for review, I have already stated in the Chamber and at the Finance Committee that I want to increase the level of liability for non-domestic vacant rating. Admittedly, the views on that policy varied in the review feedback. The case for increasing liability was clear-cut for commercially attractive areas and for areas where there is clear regeneration potential. Support for increasing liability was understandably weaker for less commercially viable areas, where owners can struggle to let properties, despite taking active steps to do so. On balance, however, I take the view that, in order to tackle the high prevalence of vacant units, I now need to move the non-domestic vacant rate from 50% to 75% and then to 100%. When fully implemented, it is estimated that the changes have the potential to unlock a further £20 million of revenue between central and local government.

Given the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG) commitments on housing and regeneration and the work being done on preventing dilapidation, there is a unique window of opportunity to maximise the impact of the changes through working actively across Departments. It is, however, a significant change, connecting so many strands of Executive policy, so Executive agreement will be required before the change can be implemented. I have instructed my officials to take forward the policy work that is required to secure Executive agreement. I also appreciate that, in order to respond to the concerns expressed during the review, there will need to be sufficient lead-in time for any change to allow owners to respond to that future shift in policy direction.

As I have stated, engagement with stakeholders over the summer was extensive. One of the discussion points was this: what can be done through the rating system to encourage business expansion? When a business makes a decision to expand, its rates liability will usually increase immediately after the work is completed. In turn, that additional rates liability creates more revenue for public services. I recognise, however, that the initial outlay, coupled with the associated increased rates liability, can be off-putting for some businesses that are waiting to take steps towards expansion. To that end, I want to progress rating policy so that the additional rates liability incurred is staggered. That may mean the difference between a business deciding to expand and deciding not to.

I am happy to announce that my Department will undertake a consultation process in the new year to progress development of the business growth accelerator policy. The consultation will seek views on policy options for using the rating system to aid business expansion rather than inhibit it, while also unlocking future increased rates income for local and central government. That unlocking of future tax-base growth will operate alongside initiatives that have been brought in since the restoration of the Executive last year, such as the Back in Business scheme.

As part of the review, we worked closely with the hospitality sector. Since the Executive returned, a central ask from that sector has been for an assessment of the valuation methodology for the receipts and expenditure method of valuation, where that is used for pubs and hospitality. Similar sentiments have been expressed in Scotland and England, and both jurisdictions have announced that they will review how the methodology is used there. I am pleased to confirm that we will take account of any findings of those review processes in order to assess any implications that they may have for our local valuation processes.

My Department has done significant work over a period of less than a year since the strategic review of rates was announced. We remain on track to facilitate changes for businesses by April 2026, provided that political agreement can be achieved to do so. I recognise that change is hard, but, if we keep doing the same thing, we will keep getting the same outcomes. People elected us to serve and deliver, and I want to deliver positive change, but that will require buy-in and partnership working.

Mr O'Toole: I support a more progressive rating system, and I support more support for small businesses. To be clear, however, the Minister is not announcing either of those things today; he is announcing more reviews. If I were to list the consultations on and reviews of the rating system that have taken place since last February, the Deputy Speaker would intervene on me — I know that he likes to do that, but I will not test his patience — because it would take a very long time. To small businesses and others who are interested in a more progressive rating system, the strategic road map appears to be a road to nowhere. So that I can be clear, Minister, do you have any intention of changing the rating system before the end of the mandate, considering that, so far, nothing has happened?

Mr O'Dowd: One criticism that I recall hearing from the Member is that we have not progressed reviews quickly enough. He now criticises me for progressing reviews too quickly. As the Member will be aware, the fact of the matter is that to change policy and legislation, there has to be a review framework. and there has to be consultation and engagement with the sector. Following that, we can come forward with either a policy change or legislative change. In my statement, I set out a number of areas in which, I believe, both policy change and legislative change will benefit our business sector, and I set a time frame within which I wish to make those changes. I assure the Member that I am dedicated to driving that agenda forward. I concluded my remarks by saying that partnership working in the Chamber and around the Executive table will be required if the changes are to be delivered. I believe that, when Members have had the opportunity to scrutinise what I am proposing, they will see the benefit to the business sector and the fact that it is the proper and right way to move forward. If we keep that in mind, progress can be made quickly.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. I also place on record my thanks to his officials and particularly to Andrew McAvoy, who gives us regular updates on policy in the area. It is welcome that, having initially been announced as a 10-year process, the review is being brought down to two years, which is something that we discussed at Committee. Non-domestic vacant rating is raised regularly with me by businesses that are struggling to pay their rates when a dilapidated building next door to them is not paying rates. Minister, you said that there is potential to unlock a further £20 million of revenue. That is huge potential, which the Communities Minister also referenced yesterday with regard to housing. I welcome your mention of the need for a cross-departmental approach.

What is the estimated time frame for seeing this make a difference to dilapidated buildings in our towns for businesses and housing?

Mr O'Dowd: It will require cross-departmental working. I am conscious of the AERA Minister's Dilapidation Bill. Through the rates process here, we can assist in regenerating our town centres. Centrally, that is the Communities Minister's role, although the AERA Minister is playing a role, and I can play a role as Finance Minister. With a fair wind, we can complete some of the work within the mandate. That will require some legislative changes to be made, and I have asked officials to start work on those immediately to see how quickly we can progress the matter.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, what engagement has your Department had with the Commissioner for Older People on changes to the early payment discount and maximum capital?

Mr O'Dowd: There has been engagement on that through a previous review. While the Older People's Commissioner can obviously speak for herself, the commission is on record as saying that the review and proposals that we have brought forward are workable. Protections are in place for the most vulnerable in our society, and older people will come under those protections if the changes that we propose bring them into a category for that. That engagement has proven worthwhile, both to the commission, hopefully, and to my officials for planning a way forward on the proposal. As I said in my statement, change is difficult, but we have to do things differently and, as an Executive, look at areas where we can raise additional finances. I believe that the changes that I have proposed are fair and equitable and have protections in place for the vulnerable.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome compressing the timetable from 10 years to two years and the intent to support small businesses and tackle vacant property. Minister, will the changes that you are proposing for supporting small businesses be possible without raising money elsewhere in the rating system? Why have we not seen the changes to the early payment discount or maximum capital value emerge from the Executive?

Mr O'Dowd: Some of the changes are possible with the non-domestic vacant rating policy. We have to identify finances to go towards more support for small businesses through the small business rate relief scheme. I could come to the Chamber and say, "I want to do this, but I need more money", I could look at myself and say, "Can you give me more money?", or I could bring forward proposals that identify from where within the current system we could raise finances that are fair and equitable and put protections in place, and we could then move forward in that direction. We have not yet had discussion or agreement at the Executive on the proposals. I continue to hope that that paper will be presented and that we can have discussion and make progress on it. I think that it is fair and equitable. If others have alternative proposals, I am open to hearing those as well.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for the statement. I welcome the indication that the business growth accelerator will be looked at as a means of staggering rates for businesses in expansion. However, like other Members, I want to ask about timelines. Given the ongoing review of the valuation methodology for pubs and hospitality businesses, what tangible impact do you expect that to have on the hospitality sector by the end of the mandate? I am talking about real on-the-ground support rather than further data collection or consultations.

Mr O'Dowd: It is worth noting that 75% of our small businesses receive support through the rates system. It costs the Executive somewhere in the region of, I think, a quarter of a billion pounds annually. That includes pubs and the hospitality sector, so quite a significant support package is in place. However, I thought that it was only right and proper that, given that Scotland and England are going through a process and will garner data and information that is similar to what we require for our system, we await their review. There is no point in my duplicating work that is going on elsewhere at this stage. Work is about to start, I understand. We will garner the information and challenges from that and see how we can support our business or what changes need to be made through that. I can understand some of the frustration that is in sectors out there about this, but we have to work our way through those processes and be mindful that significant supports are already in place.

Miss Dolan: Minister, I welcome the statement. Will you provide more detail on the business growth accelerator that you mentioned?

Mr O'Dowd: That is a very innovative way to move forward and encourage our businesses that want to expand to do so. Quite understandably, when a business owner is looking at their future business plans and to expand, they will have to take into account whether their rates will go up as a result of that and whether, while they are establishing that expansion of their business, they will be able to afford it. If the proposal goes through, we will say to businesses, "Yes, move ahead with that expansion and create a larger premises. We will support you, at least in the first year of that expansion, in relation to your rates. We won't charge you for the additional space that you have". That will allow them time to develop that expansion of their business. If we can encourage more businesses to expand physically, that will be good news for our construction sector and our economy in general. I am delighted to be able to bring forward the proposal, and I hope that it will move forward quite quickly.

Mr Kingston: I welcome that the Minister is investigating tackling blight and increasing funds for public services by increasing the level of liability for non-domestic vacant premises. The Minister will be aware of the need to disincentivise domestic properties — houses — being left vacant with reduced rates liability in certain circumstances. Does he have any intention of reviewing the removal of rates liability for domestic properties that are vacant and causing blight?

Mr O'Dowd: Taxation has a number of policy intentions. One is, obviously, to raise revenue. Another is to support habits that a Government want to progress. The revitalisation of our town centres, city centres and villages is important. Non-domestic properties lying vacant is a blight. The proposal fits in with work that other Ministers are doing.

As I said in my statement, all rating policies will be reviewed over the next number of years. That review will include whatever support or lack of support is in place at that stage. We want to see properties being brought back into use. The Communities Minister is facing challenges with social housing and housing. If I can assist in a way that brings properties back into use, whether for housing, commercial use or something else, I will do so.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister. It is good to see a progressive rating system being brought in. We have called for that for some time, particularly for small businesses; we want to see the regeneration of our town centres. Minister, you said that the changes are cost-neutral to the Department, but you also talked about an additional £9 million coming in. In addition, you talked about bringing businesses into the rating system. Will you outline what they are, what sectors you are thinking of, and what type of premises will see an increase in rates?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not exactly sure of the point that the Member is making. Apologies. All businesses pay some form of rates, with the exception of charity shops. My intention through the small business rate relief scheme is to support more businesses by looking at support from 20% up to 50% and looking at what categories those fall into. Non-domestic vacant rating is currently sitting at 50%. I want to see that rise over a number of years up to 75%, and then up to 100%. When that is fully operational, it will bring us in around £20 million extra. I will provide further clarity to the Member if I have not correctly understood the point that he made. My understanding is that all businesses are involved in the payment of rates of some kind. This is about how we support small businesses, enhance our town centres and city centres and move away from the blight of vacant properties.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. It is no surprise that the rating system is seen by many businesses as a barrier to their development and something that precludes a bustling high street. The statement referenced rental values. For some, the barrier is not the rental price but the rates payment on top of it. How will the proposals help those who wish to establish a business on the high street?

Mr O'Dowd: Rent levels are driven by the market and what people are prepared to pay, and I have limited ability to change that. However, if we support more businesses through the small business rate relief scheme, the burden of the rent that is placed on them will be lessened, because their rates will be reduced.