Debate contribution: Hospitality VAT Harmonisation
Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Hospitality VAT Harmonisation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4791009
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I declare an interest, because I was talking to Lord Murphy less than two weeks ago in the House of Lords, and that was one of the issues that I raised, so thank you. Lady Ritchie was probably listening in in the background and then decided to push on with that idea as well. It is significant, because it is an area that we should be looking at. The ability to have differential VAT rates is something that is allowed for and was in provisions that we had previously. Doing so does not necessarily take it out of the Barnett formula. There are mechanisms in place whereby it does not have to come across from the Barnett formula for the reason of the excessive cost of the Irish Sea border. It is the Irish Sea border that has created the problem, so we need to ensure that we get a level playing field across this island, and these islands, particularly in specific areas.
One area that we need to look at is the hospitality industry. It is not just a question of differential VAT, which is important, but, if the Republic of Ireland goes back down to 9·5%, we should look at that and try to achieve it as well.
I think that one of our learned friends mentioned corporation tax. That is also a significant issue. Again, given the significant costs of the Irish Sea border, there is no reason why that should have to come off the Barnett formula, bearing in mind the peculiar circumstances that have been created by the Irish Sea border and that nobody in the Assembly wants or wishes to support . I will talk about a few other issues that were raised. They are important. We have already mentioned air passenger duty and connectivity. People will be aware, of course, of the issue with Dublin Airport's capacity. Dublin Airport is at capacity. There is an opportunity for enhanced air operations on the island. The ideal place to do it — I declare an interest as an MLA for South Antrim — is Belfast International Airport. Considerable investment should be made in Belfast International Airport to improve the tourism product on the island. Many people in Northern Ireland would wish to be able to go straight into and out of Northern Ireland, particularly to the United States and other places. We should push for that as well. On rate relief, I will make another declaration of interest — I think that it is my third —.
It is my fourth. There you go, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I keep to the rules. There is the important question of small business rate relief and the burden on small businesses. Many tourism and hospitality businesses are in the SME sector. The larger firms do not have the same degree of difficulty, because, as has been pointed out, they can spread their burden across other sides of their industry and business. For the SME sector, that will be critical. We have to look at that. I urge the Minister to look at it expeditiously and to push ahead with it as quickly as possible. I think that I have wittered on enough. A bit like my learned friend on the other side of the Chamber, I have spoken an awful lot today. I am chairing the next debate, so I will probably speak ever more. I encourage everybody to support the motion. I thank my esteemed friend Diana Armstrong for bringing it to the Floor. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the debate. Over to you.
599 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: 0.05 (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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.58 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.41 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.