Motion or amendment: Supporting the Hospitality Sector
Motion or amendment by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 2 March 2026
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Supporting the Hospitality Sector
- Assembly identifier
- Document 473928
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Supporting the Hospitality Sector
That this Assembly recognises the enormous contribution hospitality businesses make to Northern Ireland’s economy and the significant anxiety experienced across the sector following the recent REVAL 2026 announcement; notes that the absence of adequate support measures in advance of that announcement has created considerable uncertainty for pubs and other hospitality businesses; believes that the pause in the process provides an important opportunity for the Department of Finance to engage comprehensively with the sector to understand the pressures it faces and the support required to protect jobs, encourage investment and sustain economic growth; calls on the Minister of Finance to set out the next steps to provide clarity and stability for affected businesses, including commissioning a full, independent review of the business rates system and the valuation methodology applied to pubs, as well as options for sectoral relief for hospitality; and further calls on the Minister to engage with the UK Government on the case for a reduced rate of VAT for hospitality businesses.
167 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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-qualifying 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 | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:21 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.