Debate contribution: VAT for Hospitality
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- VAT for Hospitality
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4489459
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the leader of the Opposition for tabling the motion. If I had tabled this uncosted motion in my name, I wonder whether I would have ended up on another SDLP graphic condemning me for doing so. I note that, in its motion, the SDLP asks Ministers to bring forward a support package, and they will happily do the job of the Opposition for them once again. This is my first opportunity to speak in the House since Minister Murphy temporarily stood aside. I associate myself and my party with the best wishes to him, and I pay tribute to Minister Hargey and wish her well in her new role. She will be missed on the Finance Committee. She is a formidable and capable politician. I am sure that she will do an excellent job in her new role.
I now get to speak about two of my favourite subjects: North Belfast and pints. Most DUP people on the Back Benches probably have not spoken about the latter. As someone who is proud to have the Cathedral Quarter in their constituency, I see it as a prime example of how our hospitality, tourism and pub sector can be a game changer for our city and region. The Cathedral Quarter transformed that part of North Belfast, taking away dereliction and attracting five-star hotel accommodation. It has the Duke of York — other bars are available — and many other pubs and restaurants. The so-called Tribeca site sits right beside it, and that is an example of how our city and hospitality sector can be undermined if we do not support them. In part of our city, that blight has sat for years, and, to date, we have not been able to get to grips with changing it. Can you imagine how, if we continued to transform the city by supporting the hospitality sector, that part of the city could be attractive to so many new businesses? We support the Alliance amendment. It brings forward a number of important points that we can look at. Previously, we have targeted rates relief successfully for non-domestic properties. The small business rate relief scheme is a huge support, as is the industrial derating scheme. The focus should be on targeted relief rather than on looking at the devolution of further powers at this stage. I pay tribute to all Members who want to support that vital sector. It has an important role to play, and I hope that the Minister will look at some options for what she could do on rates relief. There are ones that may not be so successful —.
Thank you.
441 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: 0.08 (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 (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.84 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:28 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.