Debate contribution: Hospitality VAT Harmonisation

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 10 February 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

10 February 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Hospitality VAT Harmonisation

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4790971

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I probably speak in too many debates in the Chamber. I am sure that some of my colleagues will agree. I am sure that, privately, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, you will agree that I open my mouth too often in the Chamber. I was not planning to speak in this debate, but I will do so because, first of all, it is an important topic and, secondly, it is important that we are honest and consistent in the Chamber about what we do. As has previously been referred to, I think, by Mr Tennyson, we debated a motion that called on the Executive to do something very similar. It was not exactly the same, but the motion was fairly similar to this one and was debated during an Opposition day in May 2024. That debate was responded to by the previous Finance Minister, who just happens to be the current Economy Minister who will respond to this debate. Her party did not divide on that motion. In fact, there was no Division; the motion was agreed by acclamation. That was nine months ago. I would have expected, as would, I think, people who watched that debate, some meaningful follow-through. People in the hospitality industry face huge, real pressures. Independent publicans, cafe owners, hoteliers and restaurateurs face extraordinary pressure. We talk about it and rhetoricise about it in the Chamber, but they struggle to make payroll. They are providing something hugely important. The tens of thousands of jobs have been mentioned and the extraordinary gross value added (GVA) to this region, but people would rightly expect that the Executive, the Finance Minister and the Economy Minister, having already committed to look at this and bring forward a package of proposals, would have done so, not least because things have got worse since we last debated this. However, they have not, and we have not seen that yet. There is a cost-of-doing-business review, which came after the new costs that were created by the UK Government's autumn Budget, but we have no clear policy intent. I presume that the motion will be passed today; I would be surprised if it were not. There has been much to agree with in the debate. Of course, we will probably all end up agreeing or largely agreeing with the motion, but pointing out some of the inconsistencies that happen in the Chamber is a bit like being in a twilight zone. First, we have heard parties lambast the existence of the Northern Ireland protocol, which is there in part to protect and recognise the essence of the all-island economy: the fact that we exist on an island. There are two different jurisdictions, whether, politically or constitutionally, you like it or not. My party and I do not, but, on the basis of today's debate, we all recognise that there are two jurisdictions on the island that are economically intertwined. The performance of one is dependent on the other. You would not think that some of the parties that advocated that and talked about the variance and the awful situation created by the presence of an international border were the same parties that are resisting any form of protection for the all-island economy and, in fact, were offended by the use of the term "all-island economy". It is true to say that Ireland is a single unit when it comes to an offering for tourists. Many tourists are not aware of political boundaries; they simply come to the island of Ireland. That is why Tourism Ireland exists. It is why we and others have called for greater alignment in branding. Yes, alignment of VAT would be welcome. Of course, we already have certain other types of tax alignment that are theoretically in existence but have not been enacted by Ministers, and I want to point out the inconsistency. It is all well and good talking on a Monday about how we need to have greater all-island alignment economically and then, on the Tuesday, railing against something in international law that is designed to protect not just economic partnership but economic entities — businesses — that are affected by the presence of the border. Another inconsistency is the fact that, for the past year, the Sinn Féin Economy and Finance Ministers have done nothing in terms of greater fiscal devolution to align us on an all-island basis. They have not brought forward any practical measures, whether in relation to the Fiscal Council, which Minister Murphy first appointed and announced in 2020, or some of the newer measures that we passed. As I said, we passed a motion on this in May last year. I have the hospitality industry in my blood. I grew up working in pubs. I still have that on both sides of my family. I care deeply about our tourism offer. I represent in South Belfast a large part of the city centre of Belfast, including our amazing hospitality offer here in the city, which is intimately connected. As we know, the significant majority of our visitors to Northern Ireland arrive in — shock horror! — Dublin Airport, because we are viewed as one small island to visit. You will never find our party wanting when it comes to championing the all-island economy and standing against the awful electronic travel authorisation and all of those things. We tabled a motion saying basically the same thing last May. Parties supported it, including the party that holds the Economy Ministry and the Finance Ministry.

Nothing thus far has been done. By all means, let us pass the motion — I support it — but let us get real.

942 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:56 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.

Challenge this classification