Debate contribution: Hospitality and Tourism: East Antrim
Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .
- MLA
- Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 11 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Hospitality and Tourism: East Antrim
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496143
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome this debate on hospitality and tourism in East Antrim, and thank Ms Brownlee for securing it. She is passionate about her constituency, as I am about mine, and when you visit East Antrim, it is not hard to see why. East Antrim, from Cushendun down to Carrickfergus, has some of the most breathtaking views that you will see anywhere in Northern Ireland, and, like my beautiful city of Derry, culture and history also rhyme in Carrickfergus. It is an area of profound natural beauty that encapsulates some of the most beautiful areas across the North. When people visit the glens of Antrim, it is no exaggeration to say that the views that they find are some of the most spectacular on this island. It is a favourite spot for day trippers as well as those who stay longer, and we need to get people to stay longer when they do come to Northern Ireland. The hospitality sector is fundamental to the success of that offering across East Antrim, in particular to the success of the tourism industry. It is the lifeblood of a thriving economy in any community, generating and driving wealth as well as social inclusion, and improving well-being. In fact, every £100 spent in the hospitality industry generates added value to the local economy of about £58, and that is a really impressive return on investment. Tomorrow, the Economy Committee will be pleased to hear evidence from Hospitality Ulster about the challenges and opportunities for the sector. I have no doubt that it will state some of the challenges that the Member outlined in opening the debate. Tourism growth can help every part of Northern Ireland to thrive, not least East Antrim, which already has a lot to offer. I have no doubt that we will, as I said, also hear about the challenges, especially as a result of the lingering effects of the pandemic. Indeed, the rising cost of doing business is, itself, a challenge. As Ms Brownlee mentioned, those challenges include the need for support for recruitment and retention in the sector, including the development of hospitality skills that are badly needed. A total of 17% of businesses in the hospitality industry have reported that they are at risk of failure in the next year, with intervention needed as a matter of urgency on small business rates relief and a cut in VAT. The tourism sector across the North is one of the biggest success stories of our peace process. However, the sector faces challenges, including a need to support businesses that are driving the sector's growth and a lack of a coherent approach from the Government. We cannot debate the challenges facing tourism in any part of Northern Ireland without raising the crucial need for mitigations when it comes to the electronic travel authorisation (ETA) scheme. The sector has been crystal clear that the ETA is unworkable here, and, in fact, it has the potential to be deeply damaging. We need to see Ministers in Stormont stepping up and marshalling opposition to its implementation. The SDLP has been resolute in calling for a tourism strategy and action plan that is fit for purpose and includes investment that commits to concrete and tangible measures and targets for those industries. We must back up the warm words that are often said in the Chamber about hospitality and tourism with the action that East Antrim and every other constituency needs. I wish East Antrim many, many tourists with full pockets of money over the holiday season and, in fact, right through the autumn and at other times. It has a lot to offer, including the warmth of its people. I welcome being part of the debate.
620 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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | 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 | 0.81 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.09 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.05 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:47 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.