If we are going to continue with a rating system then, on principle, revaluation should be as often as humanly practical so as to avoid the type of distortions that resulted from the 21-year gap prior to the last one. If we are going to continue with the rating system - and I understand from the Minister's comments that the whole system would, and should, be subject to an early review - I would question the timing of this revaluation.

If we are to embark on a review of the overall rating system, could those resources be used to restructure the system to provide something more effective? I accept that the purpose of revaluation is to remove distortions and give better equity between properties. Domestic properties were ignored in the last revaluation. Is there not an opportunity here? If we are to continue with rating, why were domestic properties excluded again? The level of distortion will be aggravated because of the 30-year gap since revaluation was last carried out on domestic properties.

I sympathise with Mr Shannon's comments about how we protect the lifeblood of the smaller shopkeeper, rural post offices and so forth throughout Northern Ireland. I would extend this to our towns and cities. High street retail was one of the sectors that suffered most dramatically from the last revaluation. As has been mentioned, the result was that many premises were vacated. We do not want our towns to turn into ghost towns or huge office blocks. We must do our utmost to encourage people to have a proper retail mix in our towns and city centres; otherwise we may destroy the entire fabric of society in Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately, over a number of years we have been slipping towards that. Drive through any of our main provincial towns, say Lisburn, which is the jewel in the crown of Northern Ireland's shopping centres, and what you see are numerous "for let" and "for sale" signs. This is solely due to excessive rents and excessive rates. The offshoot of this is that a proper retail mix is gradually being eroded from our towns and cities.

Over the past five years food stores have suffered the greatest change in their history. We now have the Sainsburys and the Tescos in Northern Ireland. Presumably, they escaped the last dramatic shift. There was no real basis to hang their rentals on, so this time there will be a considerable battle with the large superstores. The impact that this will have on shopping is something that must be seriously considered.

We must try to expedite the rates evaluation. Is it the best way to attract income? We need to eliminate the current distortions, and I question whether rates are the best way to do this.

Mr Close referred to Lisburn as the premier shopping town, but surely Lurgan and Portadown are in the same category.

Many shops in our towns are lying empty, and empty shops are of no use to towns or to ratepayers. We must try to encourage our shopkeepers. If we burden them with high rates, it becomes impossible for them to exist.

I represent a rural area, and this has highlighted for me the fact that people in those areas must travel to towns to get what they need. For example, our small post office has closed - it is very difficult for small branches to compete with the bigger post offices in the town that have so many services to offer their customers.

I welcome the statement that there will be a review every five years. That is long overdue.

It worries me that people in rural areas are being deprived of many of the services that are available in towns. I hope that the various authorities will take this point on board.

There are many derelict shops and houses across the country, and this is of grave concern. This is a sore point and a big drawback to any society. I hope that in the coming months and years a rebate will be introduced to encourage people to renovate derelict properties so that they are fit to be lived in again. Peace has taken its grip on our community, but these areas have endured a good deal of torment and turmoil over the last 10 or 15 years, and due consideration must be given to the houses there.

Any subject matter brought to the House by the Minister of Finance that touches on the issue of rates will get the attention not only of Assembly Members but, more importantly, of a very large section of our community. Few people are not impacted in one way or another by the level of their rates bills. Over recent days the intention to have a substantial increase in the regional rate has brought stories to many of us, particularly from shopkeepers and small businesses. They face very real hardship as a result of what will be small changes to the Northern Ireland Budget overall but which will mark very large changes to their normal business cash flow.

When we talk about reviewing the valuation list, we talk about the potential to put people out of work. I am not sure how the Minister's Colleague managed to summon the view that there is a good-news story here. In reality, as a result of this valuation list review, every one of us will have constituents coming to tell us that their rates have been hiked up very considerably. Of one thing we can be certain - those who benefit as a result of the review will not be coming to tell us about it. We will hear the sad stories in this case, and there are bound to be many.

I want to make a particular case - and not for jewels in the crown. Those who come to the Assembly and tell us how swimmingly things are going in Lisburn, Portadown and Lurgan obviously require less sympathy from the Minister than those of us who talk about substantial difficulties in our constituencies. Therefore the Minister needs to pay some attention to the areas where there is no glitter and very few jewels.

I draw the Minister's attention, in particular, to the difficult task faced by shopkeepers in the periphery of Belfast. They are competing against large stores and businesses in Belfast city centre. Traditional shopping patterns are changing - people are going more often to out-of-town stores to pick up the week's groceries. The corner shop is under great pressure, yet it is a vital part of the vibrancy and integrity of the local community. The Minister should give some guidance to those who will determine the valuation and say that there must be some allowance for those who are trying to keep that part of the retail community alive in these difficult circumstances. If smaller stores are treated in the same way as Marks & Spencer, Sainsburys, Tesco, or Safeway, they will not get a fair deal. The whole community will have cause for regret if small corner stores go out of business, causing that part of the life of our community to die off.

I agree with the Minister that there should be regular reviews. There is case for regular review since this does not, in itself, set the amount that people will pay for rates - it decides the formula which will determine the apportionment of the overall rates burden that each will eventually pay. However, I agree with Colleagues that there is a good reason for holding a review of the domestic sector.

There have been some occasions when constituents have voiced to me their objections to their rates bill because of a change that has taken place in their area. The valuer, sent out to visit the property, has sometimes concluded that, because of a garage, extension or improvement that was not included on the original valuation, the occupant should be paying a higher rates bill. If this small number of cases is indicative of the situation in the community as a whole, significant changes are required. The rating of domestic properties would be an enormous job to undertake. Businessmen, in particular, will say that they want to have the same degree of scrutiny on all properties on the valuation list, rather than just on the non- domestic properties.

I trust that the Minister will look at all of these points and recognise that there is a case for small businesses, particularly shopkeepers, who have a difficult job to make ends meet in present circumstances.

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. The motion relates to a short statutory rule, but the subject of rates and revaluation always generates great interest among Members, who are constantly alert to the interests of their constituents. I have listened with interest to the points made. They were informative and challenging, and I will try to respond to as many of them as I can.

Mr Byrne said that the need for timely revaluations to avoid the significant gaps and excessive changes that we have seen in the past is a key reason for supporting a revaluation now. It will mean that we will have had a revaluation after six years, rather than five. I believe that we should be moving to regular revaluation on a five-year basis. The Order does not of itself put us onto a five-year revaluation cycle; it is simply about the next revaluation. People might have had wider questions about us pre-empting the rating policy review if we had been committing ourselves fully and deliberately to a five-year cycle now. That is an issue that will obviously come up as part of the wider rating policy review, but I note the thoughts that Members have already expressed in that regard.

Joe Byrne is also correct in saying that the revaluation rates are based on rental values. That is something that people have views on. Many people seem to be questioning the accuracy and adequacy of the last revaluation. Independent appeals mechanisms are available. There is a common recognition that many of the valuations arising from the last revaluation have been overtaken. There have been changes in the retail geography of many towns; there are new players; and the market has changed. As a result, trading practices and customer preferences have also changed. We recognise that. Again, that is an argument for revaluation rather than against it.

The last time around, transitional arrangements were made when variations emerged on revaluation, and those arrangements reflected the very significant changes that some ratepayers faced. We really do not know the scale of the variations that we are going to face this time. It would be premature to say that there will be a transitional relief scheme. That is something that will need to be reviewed in light of what the revaluation yields.

Jim Shannon raised points that touched, in particular, on businesses in rural areas - especially post offices. He also highlighted the point that provision is being made in Great Britain for 50% rate relief for certain properties and businesses falling into a particular category. This is another area that we want to consider realistically. Legislation was passed before devolution that would provide for such a scheme here. As I indicated in a previous written answer to Sean Neeson - and I referred to it in an answer to Joan Carson as well - work has been done in relation to that legislation. There are issues in relation to defining the relevant areas and the businesses that would qualify. There are still a number of outstanding points, in relation to implementing the legislation, which I want to consider.

Members are aware that I have announced - it is in the Programme for Government - that there will be a wider rating policy review, the details of which I will be bringing forward soon. I am not convinced that it would be fair to simply leave the question of making targeted relief available until the rating policy review, because the rating policy review will itself take some time to bring forward results. I will be considering the matter further to see what we can do in relation to the existing legislative provisions.

Seamus Close raised a number of points. He stressed his belief that if we are going to have rates, and therefore revaluations, those revaluations should be as regular as is practicable. He also raised the point that a general rating review would perhaps be preferable to the revaluation. We are having a wider review of rating policy, but, because it might take a number of years for results and decisions to come through from that review, it would be advisable to proceed with non-domestic revaluation now.

If people recognise timely revaluation as important, we should not delay it simply because we are having the wider review. It makes sense to proceed with the revaluation and the wider review. The wider review may confirm that we will still have non-domestic rates - just as there was when changes were made to the rates systems elsewhere. For instance, when domestic rates where abolished in the South, non-domestic rates were retained. Equally, across the water, when rates gave way to the poll tax - quickly followed by the council tax - non- domestic rates were retained.

It would not be appropriate to suspend any move on revaluation until we had the wider review, not least because many Members are saying that current revaluations are out of sync with current rental values and real market factors. If that adjustment is needed, and revaluation needs to take place, then we should not be making excuses to avoid it. If I were delaying revaluation pending the review, more questions would have been raised about that approach than the one we are currently adopting.

Mr Close referred to the impact on the retail sector, particularly by the big multiples that have come here. There has been a significant change in retail geography since the last revaluation, which, again, underpins the case for such a revaluation - a point further reinforced by Mr Peter Robinson.

While not taking issue with those who emphasised the needs of people in small towns and rural areas, this also served to highlight some of what are regarded as urban discrepancies in relation to current valuation patterns. Many small shops and businesses in urban areas, particularly those in the penumbra of the bigger cities, face particular difficulties and challenges. That is why revaluation should be seen as a positive exercise. If people feel that they are suffering under excessive valuations at present, then they should welcome a revaluation.

Mr Robinson said that the point of a revaluation is not to set about increasing the overall yield from rates - that yield is determined by our spending needs. It redistributes the overall rates burden in line with current property values. In that way it is actually a re-balancing exercise. Revaluation should address the imbalances that people tell me are already building up as a result of differential levels of rental growth, and, it is to be hoped, prevent other imbalances arising. The revaluation will come into force on 1 April 2003, and the new rateable values will be based on rental values as at 1 April 2001.

I should point out that in the last revaluation, the overall increase in total value was 630%, with a corresponding reduction in average rate poundage from £2·50 to £0·40. Other things being equal, an average increase in total value of 25% should see average rate poundages falling back to around the £0·40 mark again. I hope that that clarifies for Members that this exercise is not about trying to increase the rate burden overall on small businesses, or anyone else, it is about trying to achieve a more equitable distribution of that rate burden.

Assembly: Ad Hoc Committee on Life
Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001

Composition: UUP 2
SDLP 2
DUP 2
SF 2
Other Parties 2

Quorum: The quorum shall be five

Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such
as the Committee shall determine. - [Mr Dodds]

The motion is about the appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider a draft Life Sentence Order. The point I simply want to make - perhaps not quite as briefly as the proposer of the motion - is that for someone within the DUP to not merely propose such an Ad Hoc Committee but that such a Committee should include members of Sinn Féin is entirely incongruous. The proposal effectively legitimises the role of a political party inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation in the consideration of a matter of a delicate legality. In the process of doing that, it entirely legitimises the functions of that party within the Assembly by another party. [Interruption]

Order.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, the Member is not speaking to the motion. Secondly, it is worth noting that it was the Business Committee that decided who should propose this motion. The Member is out of order. If his party had a representative on the Business Committee, he would know that.

I reject the allegation. We are here to discuss whether or not we should have such a Committee. I am making an argument against it. Even if the Business Committee decided who was going to put forward the motion, we are all free agents in the Assembly. We can say "I am not prepared to put forward that sort of a motion. It is entirely incompatible with the position I have put to my electorate. I am actually opposed to, prepared to face down, and give no legitimacy to, a political organisation fronting a terrorist organisation responsible for high levels of criminality for 30 years." [Interruption]

Order.

Is it an order for a Member to persistently attack the proposer of the motion, when he has already been told he is out of order?

The Member has not been told he is out of order. He is not out of order in his referring to the motion.

I do not wish to continue the debate. I have made my point. I am quite sure that the deputy leader of that party will no doubt be indulging in a bit of fancy political footwork, in that platform piece in the 'News Letter', to try to persuade his electorate, that this is what he was actually voted to do.

Order. It is not in order to refer to newspaper articles and the proposer of the motion in this light.

I do not know whether to laugh at what has just preceded or cry at the tragedy that someone - for whom I have a lot of respect, and we agree on many things - puts such efforts into what is really an issue of such triviality. It really beggars belief. When we usually agree on so much, to find him using this tactic really strikes at the lowest level. I urge the Member and his colleagues - whoever or whatever is putting them up to this - to resist and join with us in our efforts to try to speak on behalf of those in the majority of the Unionist community - [Interruption]

Order.

I did not interrupt the previous Member, and I hope that I will be given the same courtesy. We presently have the support of, I think, the majority of the Unionist community by reflecting disillusionment in the way in which the Belfast Agreement has been implemented and opposing the agreement itself. I hope that the Members will join with us if what they say is their main objective is, indeed, their main objective. Some of the things that they say and do run counter to that.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Someone drew your attention to the fact that Mr Roche departed from the issue, and you ruled that that was incorrect. Mr Dodds is well off the mark now. He should remember that he does have a pledge with the electorate - the united Unionist pledge to oppose the Belfast Agreement.

Order. I will pay close attention to Members' remarks.

Once again, Cedric has got it wrong. Membership of the House's statutory Committees is also decided on a proportional basis and includes Sinn Féin. Members of Mr Wilson's party sat on that Committee, agreed with that and proposed that. They are being hypocritical by alleging that we agreed something different.

Order. The Member will address his remarks through the Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to do that.

As has been mentioned, this is a technical motion, which has been agreed by the Business Committee. When we come to examine the issue, we will debate it properly in the House and give our views. Instead of occasionally coming to the House to rail against things, it would be far better if the Member and his party helped the rest of us so that we can actually promote the Unionist cause. [Interruption] Because he has been hit hard, the Member continues to interrupt.

Order.

It would be very helpful if members of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party - [Interruption]

Order. I will have order in the House. The Member will bring his remarks to a close.

Clearly, when points that hit home are made, some Members do not like it and cannot take it. The reality is that the Members concerned come into this Assembly. Their remarks about sitting in Committee apply equally to sitting in the Assembly, because members of Sinn Féin / IRA sit in the Chamber. They sit happily here, but for some reason they cannot sit on a Committee. They will explain their own reasons.

However, if they did sit on Committees, including this Committee - [Interruption]. I wish the Member would calm down. It is obviously hitting home. If they did that they would help the Unionist cause. He could ensure that there was a strong Unionist majority on those Committees, but his current activities ensure that places on those Committees go by default to Sinn Féin / IRA. He is assisting Sinn Féin / IRA by not taking a seat on the scrutiny Committees. The reality -

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the same nonsense that the DUP put forward when it took its ministerial positions. It said that if that if it did not take its ministerial positions they would go to Sinn Féin and the SDLP. The same bunkum -

Order. Which Standing Order is the Member referring to?

Mr Dodds knows well the point that I am making with regard to not working the Belfast Agreement.

Order. Mr Dodds, bring your remarks to a close.

I am surprised that Mr Wilson could not refer to the relevant Standing Order. He and his party helped to write the Standing Orders on the Committee with Sinn Féin, and they actually proposed that Sinn Féin should be on the statutory Committees. It is a bit strange that he does not know the number. May I - [Interruption]

I will have order in the House. Order.

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

I will certainly do that. As I have said, this is a technical motion. We look forward to every Unionist pulling his weight in the Committee and doing the job that he was elected to do, as we have done in our party, and as we have carried out our manifesto commitments.

Composition: UUP 2
SDLP 2
DUP 2
SF 2
Other Parties 3

Quorum: The quorum shall be five.

Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine.

Perhaps you could instruct the House on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Members are vociferous about an issue, is it not usual to give expression to that opposition when the Question is put by having a Division? Or are Members just play-acting and whimpering pseudo- opposition?

Members know very well what the procedure is.

<< Prev