Debate contribution: VAT for Hospitality
Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- VAT for Hospitality
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4489480
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Approximately four weeks ago in the Chamber, I raised the issue of the closure of Clenaghans restaurant in Aghalee and of the Owl and Pussycat cafe in Hillsborough, as Sorcha referenced. Since then, I have raised the issue at the Economy Committee and at Question Time, and I thank the Minister for meeting Colin Neill and the sector. I have had so many messages from across Northern Ireland asking me to keep speaking up on the issue. The demographic of our hospitality businesses is unique. Most operators are local and do not have the national chains trading in the region. Mike referred to that. Most businesses are small in turnover and job numbers, which means that taxation, VAT and business rate burdens fall heavily on our local community and local hospitality and those businesses do not have access to the economies of scale that larger chains have. Yet, in England, larger chains have rates relief, which has been applied at 75% for three years in a row for all hospitality, retail and leisure businesses. That has not been replicated here, so, frankly, we are losing businesses unnecessarily. The Alliance amendment focuses on reviewing our rating structure as a much more practical way for the Assembly to help. As Eóin detailed, Alliance calls for an independent review of non-domestic rate relief, including small business rate relief. The Assembly lacks the ability to target economic support and growth easily through tax mechanisms, which, Alliance believes, we need to do. To grow our economy, we need to understand how any relief could be better targeted at sectors that most need support. We need to give the Assembly the ability to target, support and encourage further economic growth and create more jobs. Alliance believes that all taxation should be progressive; Eóin went through bits of that. The review must prioritise creating a fair system that builds growth. It simply cannot be fair that businesses in our cities, towns and villages carry a higher percentage tax burden than businesses in other areas do. That needs to be reviewed as a whole. We are the only UK region that does not have a rural rate relief scheme to support the rural community and view the businesses there — the retail businesses or the village pub — as community facilities as well as a businesses. That would help to support rural communities, so Alliance would support a review of rural rates relief. I have cut my speech to shreds. Hopefully, in that quick three minutes, I have summed up our position. I support our amendment and the motion.
436 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.