Northern Ireland Hospitality Sector

Debate between Robin Swann and Alex Easton

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, because we do share a land border with another jurisdiction. In the Republic of Ireland, hospitality businesses already benefit from a significantly lower VAT rate of 13.5%, but the Irish Government have gone further by moving towards a 9% rate for food-led hospitality, as he said. That creates a clear competitive imbalance.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate on an important issue. Does he agree that in my constituency and right across Northern Ireland, many pubs, cafés, hotels, B&Bs and local attractions are operating on extremely narrow margins? Targeted VAT relief would improve cash flows and strengthen their resilience, particularly amid rising wage, energy, food and insurance costs.

[Robin Swann]

I agree with the hon. Member. That is why many representative organisations think that VAT reduction would be a key enabler. It would not solve all those problems, but it would definitely help.

With regard to the cross-border imbalance, a family deciding where to spend their money, a couple booking a wedding reception, an organisation booking an event or a visitor choosing accommodation is increasingly influenced by price. Businesses on the other side of the border enjoy a tax advantage that can amount to tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, depending on their size. The result is obvious. Northern Ireland businesses are competing with one hand tied behind their back, and the problem is about to get worse unless action is taken.

It is especially striking that the United Kingdom’s 20% VAT rate for hospitality is increasingly an outlier across Europe. France applies 10%, Italy 10%, Croatia 13% and Germany is moving towards a reduced hospitality rate. Across Europe, Governments recognise hospitality as a strategically important sector deserving of support because of its role in employment, tourism and local economic development.

The question we are asking the Government is simple: if other countries are using VAT policy to support growth, jobs and investment, why are they unwilling to even test whether such an approach could work in Northern Ireland? That is why the proposal for a Northern Ireland VAT pilot is so compelling. A pilot is not a permanent commitment or a leap in the dark; it is evidence-driven policymaking. It would allow the Treasury to assess whether a reduced rate increases economic activity, protects employment, boosts tourism and stimulates wider tax revenues through income tax, national insurance contributions and corporation tax.

The advantages could be substantial. First, it would help businesses remain viable. For many hospitality operators, a VAT reduction would improve margins at a time when costs are rising dramatically. Some businesses would pass savings directly to customers through lower prices, while others may reinvest those savings into staffing, wages, training or expansion. Either way, the money would remain within the real economy. Secondly, it would support jobs. Hospitality is one of the largest employers of our young people, and it provides opportunities for people entering the workforce, developing skills or returning to employment. Protecting hospitality means protecting livelihoods in every constituency across our country.

Thirdly, it would strengthen tourism. Visitors do not separate hotels, restaurants, cafés and attractions from their overall experience of Northern Ireland, so a more competitive hospitality sector would help to create a stronger visitor economy. Recent successes in attracting major international events have demonstrated Northern Ireland’s potential to attract visitors and generate significant economic returns, and a more competitive VAT regime would build on that success. Fourthly, it would support our high streets and local communities. Hospitality businesses create footfall, bring people into town centres and occupy premises that might otherwise stand vacant. Every restaurant, café or takeaway that survives and prospers contributes to the wider vitality of our communities.

However, there is another important question: can this be done legally? The answer is yes. Too often, discussions about Northern Ireland are dominated by what cannot be done because of the protocol or Windsor framework. On this occasion, the legal advice is clear that neither the VAT provisions that apply to Northern Ireland nor state aid considerations would prevent the UK Government from introducing a reduced VAT pilot for the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland. Indeed, article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol specifically envisages a situation where VAT arrangements may diverge to address competitive imbalances with the Republic of Ireland, which is the case here. The legal route, the economic case and the practical mechanism exist. What is required now is the political will to act.

Of course, we have to be honest about the challenges. A reduction of VAT would have an up-front fiscal cost. The purpose of such a pilot is to measure whether increased economic activity could offset some or all of that additional revenue loss over time through growth, investment and employment. The question before us is not whether there is a cost, but whether the cost of doing nothing is greater. What is the cost of businesses closing? What is the cost of jobs being lost? What is the cost of investment leaving Northern Ireland? What is the cost of allowing a widening competitive gap between businesses north and south of the border? Those questions deserve answers, and a Northern Ireland pilot would provide them.

Northern Ireland has often been described as unique. In this case, our unique circumstances provide a unique opportunity. We have a clearly defined geographical market, face a distinct cross-border competitive challenge and have an obvious comparator in the Republic of Ireland. That makes Northern Ireland the ideal test bed for a hospitality VAT pilot. If successful, the lessons learned could inform policy across the wider United Kingdom. This proposal is pro-business, pro-worker, pro-tourism and pro-growth. More importantly, it is practical and evidence-based and deserves to be tested rather than dismissed.

The incoming Prime Minister talks of more devolution. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to put such a case in front of him. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has opened an evidence call for an inquiry on this subject, so it will not go away at the close of this debate. I therefore urge the Government and the Treasury to work with the Northern Ireland Executive, industry representatives and local businesses to establish a reduced VAT pilot for hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland. Let us give this vital sector a fair chance to compete, protect jobs and investment, strengthen our tourism offering and demonstrate that creative economic policy can help to unlock Northern Ireland’s full economic potential.

Veterinary Medicines: Northern Ireland

Debate between Robin Swann and Alex Easton

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first of several interventions. At that meeting, we made it clear to the Minister that a solution must be in place by the end of this year. If it is not, the consequences for animal health, human health and our agrifood economy could be severe. Time is running out—we have only four weeks to go.

This issue has been known about for some time. In February of this year, I hosted an event with the British Veterinary Association in Parliament to highlight the concerns and to urge Government to act while there was still plenty of time. That was 10 months ago. Since then, the warnings have grown louder. Recently, more than 19,000 vets from across the United Kingdom signed a joint letter to Government stressing the importance of protecting Northern Ireland’s access to veterinary medicines.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Given that the National Office of Animal Health has warned that, in a worst-case scenario, up to 50% of veterinary medicines could be withdrawn from Northern Ireland, with serious consequences for animal health and agrifood, should the UK Government commit to urgent, targeted support for farmers and vets, who are heavily reliant on those products?

Access to GPs

Debate between Robin Swann and Alex Easton

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Easton]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I totally agree with everything he said. People across Northern Ireland are not able to see their GP as much as those in other parts of the UK. That is leading to big frustrations for our constituents. The lack of support and funding for GPs is adding to the frustration that is felt across the board.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

This is a debate about GP access across the United Kingdom, but one issue in Northern Ireland is GPs’ ability to access indemnity insurance, whereas in England and Wales there is a Government-provided scheme. Does the hon. Member agree that if the Government worked with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to allow our GPs to access that indemnity insurance scheme on a national level, it would ease some of the burden on our GPs?

[Alex Easton]

I agree, and perhaps the Minister will take that point on board in looking at how we can improve our GP services.

One of the significant challenges across the UK is the shortage of GPs, which inevitably leads to longer waiting times and, unfortunately, sometimes to a compromised quality of care.

Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner

Debate between Robin Swann and Alex Easton

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention—believe it or not, I was going to quote him later as well, but he has pre-empted that. Trust me, we are making cross-community representations to the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office.

Moving on from the warm words of congratulation on Mr Kinahan’s appointment, we are here today because, unfortunately, on 5 September—four years after the role was created, and having been reappointed for a second term—Mr Kinahan issued a statement announcing his resignation, which came as a surprise to some. It said:

“I can confirm that I have today resigned from my position as Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner.

Following an open and frank conversation with the Secretary of State, I have sadly concluded that I cannot provide the independent voice that veterans require.

There is a feeling among some veterans in Northern Ireland that they have been forgotten and that they do not enjoy the same protections as their counterparts in Great Britain.

Veterans in Northern Ireland have particular needs and concerns which need to be addressed by the UK Government, which I have made very clear in our discussions.”

In closing, Danny said:

“Finally, I would like to place on record my gratitude to all those who have placed their trust in me and assisted me with my work over the last four years. I will continue to work in their interests where I can.”

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Does he agree that it is essential to empower the Veterans Commissioner and strengthen their authority, and that any enhancement is crucial to effectively protect and promote the interests of our veterans?

[Robin Swann]

I do agree with the hon. Member, and I will expand on that in my later comments.

In the Northern Ireland Assembly, Lord Elliott, then Ulster Unionist Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, said that Mr Kinahan’s resignation impacted directly on the veterans community and on the support available to veterans in Northern Ireland. He went on to say that Mr Kinahan

“cited an inability to: ‘provide the independent voice that veterans require’, which underscores a critical development in how veterans’ affairs are managed in Northern Ireland.”

Speaking of Mr Kinahan’s resignation, he said:

“That recent event has sparked widespread concern across the veterans community and beyond, making it a matter of immediate relevance…the recent loss of the Northern Ireland Veterans’ Support Office…underscores an alarming development that could lead to a gap in support. Given the sacrifices made by veterans, any perceived failure in providing adequate support is of exceptional public interest and requires immediate attention by the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Office.”

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the leader of Traditional Unionist Voice, said that Danny Kinahan

“performed the role in very challenging circumstances and now is an opportunity for the Government to address fundamental issues before appointing a successor.”

As he said in his intervention:

“The role of Veterans’ Commissioner must be put into a statutory basis and Government must provide proper resources and a structure.”

He also pointed out something crucial:

“Something not widely known is that the post of Veterans’ Commissioner is currently only a part time role with just two staff. By way of contrast, the Victims’ Commissioner role is full time with a staff of seven.

Many veteran issues in Northern Ireland still need to be resolved. The previous government had a draft bill to align all the veterans’ commissioners across the UK and put the posts on a statutory basis…The new Labour Government needs to take this forward”.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the leader of the DUP, said:

“Veterans throughout Northern Ireland and our party’s Veterans champions in local councils recognise the commitment”

displayed by Danny Kinahan.

So why the debate today? Why did the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland come to the decision that he did? To sum up some of Mr Kinahan’s points from a meeting with him, the most significant issue facing the Veterans Commissioner is the lack of operational independence. The commissioner is restricted to part-time status, limiting their ability to fulfil the broad responsibilities of the role. The two staff members are assigned by the Northern Ireland Office and selected without input from the commissioner, reporting directly to the NIO, not the commissioner, which he felt undermined the commissioner’s authority to lead and manage the office.

The commissioner also faced considerable limitations in staffing decisions—for example, office staff were even empowered to propose bonus awards for themselves, rather than the commissioner initiating them. He requested a formal appraisal process to assess staff performance to address areas of improvement. That was not implemented, leaving him powerless to manage the office effectively.

The structural limitations imposed have transformed the role of commissioner into that of a figurehead: while the commissioner is the public face of veteran advocacy in Northern Ireland, Mr Kinahan felt that decision making was dominated by the Northern Ireland Office, rendering the commissioner’s role largely symbolic. He said that he also struggled to ensure that the Secretary of State received full, unedited reports, which he felt undermined the commissioner’s ability to influence policy effectively.

How do those concerns impact the role of the commissioner? The identification of support for veterans is inadequate. One of the commissioner’s primary responsibilities is to identify veterans and ensure that they receive appropriate public services. Northern Ireland does not have a comprehensive database of veterans, and no questions were included in the recent census to identify our veterans. The commissioner repeatedly raised the need for door-to-door leafleting to inform veterans of available support. As a result, he estimated that only between 5,000 and 10,000 of the 120,000 veterans in Northern Ireland are in contact with support services. That failure to engage veterans is a direct consequence of NIO involvement in the operations of the commissioner’s office and a refusal to allocate resources to key initiatives. It should also be acknowledged that the 40,000 veterans who served in the Ulster Defence Regiment under constant threat, which continued after their service ended, face different challenges and are now mostly at an age where a local focus is required.

On health services for veterans, the commissioner identified significant challenges in veterans accessing healthcare, particularly those in long-term pain awaiting surgery. He put forward a proposal for partnership with NHS England and King Edward VII’s hospital to provide veterans with faster access to surgery to achieve the commitments of the armed forces covenant and the Government. But he felt that that initiative was hampered, maybe by the over-application of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

The commissioner also expressed concern about the closure of our Veterans Support Office. That closure is a stark example of how veterans’ support in Northern Ireland has been undermined. The VSO was a trusted and, again, independent organisation that provided centralised support for veterans, and its closure has left a significant gap in services. The commissioner’s views were neither considered nor consulted in the making of the decision, which seems to have been driven by the NIO and by the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.

The concerns raised were also brought forward in the independent review of UK Government welfare services for veterans, published in July 2023. There were several key Northern Ireland recommendations. Recommendation 8 stated:

“A formal welfare services governance board should be created,”

which should include Ministry of Defence officials

“and the Veterans’ Commissioners for Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.”

Recommendation 27 stated:

“Consideration to retaining the NIVSO brand, alongside that of the OVA, should be given.”

In conclusion, I will move to four recommendations for the future. These changes are essential to restoring the effectiveness of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner and ensuring the office can fulfil its intended role. The first is to establish the full independence of the office. Commissioners’ offices must be fully independent from the NIO, with direct control over staffing, budgeting and decision making. The second is to increase the time allocation from the commissioner, from a part-time role to a full-time role, or at least to a more significant time allocation. The third is to reinstate the VSO as an independent and trusted body, with the commissioner playing a key role in shaping its service. The fourth and final recommendation is to improve reporting and communication. The commissioner should have the authority to submit reports directly to the Secretary of State and the ability to engage directly with relevant Ministers and Departments. That is why I have brought this debate and make these recommendations.