Northern Ireland Assembly, 25 October 2011

295 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure wishes to make a statement.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 regarding the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) inland waterways meeting, which was held in Armagh on 12 October 2011.

The Executive were represented by me, as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and junior Minister Jonathan Bell from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). The Irish Government were represented by Jimmy Deenihan TD, Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, and Dinny McGinley TD, Minister of State with special responsibility for Gaeltacht affairs. This statement has been agreed with junior Minister Bell, and I am making it on behalf of us both.

The Council received a progress report from Mr John Martin, chief executive of Waterways Ireland, on the work of Waterways Ireland, including the following significant achievements: the provision of 609 metres of additional moorings and ongoing maintenance of the waterways; the sponsorship of over 70 events to promote awareness of the waterways across all navigations; and the hosting of a successful meeting of the Waterways Forward INTERREG IVc project in Dublin and Enniskillen, which was attended by representatives from 17 organisations from 11 EU countries, as well as Norway and Serbia. The Council approved the Waterways Ireland corporate plan 2011-13 and business plan 2011 and recommended the budget provision. The Council discussed the main priorities for Waterways Ireland in 2012 and reviewed progress in finalising the business plan and budget for 2012.

The Council received a progress report on restoration work on the Clones to Upper Lough Erne section of the Ulster canal. Ministers noted that the strategic environmental assessment report and plan documents are now complete and have been published and that the environmental impact assessment is complete. The site investigation work is ongoing. Waterways Ireland has held meetings with all relevant statutory authorities to advise them on the project. Public meetings have also been held.

Detailed drawings of the route and associated facilities have been completed. Planning notices were forwarded to land owners in the North in the week commencing 26 September; notices were placed on lands in the South in the week commencing 3 October. The formal planning applications will be submitted to the relevant authorities in both jurisdictions this month.

The Council consented to a number of property disposals. It also received a presentation from Waterways Ireland on the future potential of waterways. The presentation focused on the economic benefits of waterways to the local community, recreation, tourism and the local and national economy. The Council agreed to hold its next inland waterways meeting in February 2012.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I note that the Council received a progress report on the restoration work on the Clones to Upper Lough Erne section of the Ulster canal and that work is under way on the environmental assessment reports and progress towards property disposals. I welcome that, as per the Committee’s request, the Ulster canal project is a standing item on the NSMC inland waterways meeting agenda.

The Committee raised questions about the financial sustainability of the Ulster canal project and wrote to the Minister about that. In response to the Committee’s concerns, the Minister stated in a letter dated 21 October:

“The Irish Government is engaged at present in a Comprehensive Review of Expenditure under which all expenditure is being rigorously examined … Minister Deenihan has requested that all possible options that may assist with the advancement of the Ulster Canal project be examined and he has asked his Department officials, to keep in regular contact with Waterways Ireland with a view to advancing the project to the extent possible within the current constraints.”

That seems a far cry from a much needed financial commitment to the project. Will the Minister confirm that this is also her understanding of the current position of the Irish Government’s commitment to fund the project?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure for her question and, indeed, the Committee for its ongoing interest in the development of the Ulster canal. That is my exact understanding. The Ulster canal, and progress on it, was raised at the last sectoral meeting. There is nothing to say on the progress report from Mr Deenihan beyond the letter that the Chair read out. We were told that every opportunity to find out where the finances for the project are, particularly in the Irish Government, would be taken. It is an ongoing process, and the submission of planning notices and applications will proceed.

We have not been told that the money is not there and the project is not progressing. We have been told that there are budgetary constraints but that what can be done to progress the Ulster canal project is being done. I cannot give a figure for what funding is there at the minute, but we will certainly raise the issue and keep the Committee informed in due course.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas sin.

Will the Minister confirm whether the 2012 Waterways Ireland business plan will be approved at the next NSMC sectoral meeting?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The 2012 plan is still under review. It has gone through different periods of review. It is our intention to bring it forward as soon as possible, but I cannot give the Member a commitment that it will be cleared by February 2012. It is certainly my ambition and that of Mr Deenihan that that be realised, but, at this stage, I am not in a position to confirm that it will be ratified by February 2012.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The Waterways Ireland presentation highlighted the economic benefits to the local and national economy. What does the Minister see those economic benefits as being?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That issue has been raised before, and I thank Members for their ongoing interest. I fully appreciate that, particularly around waterways, we are talking about rural communities. I think that it was John Dallat who raised that before. It is really important, given the financial climate, that rural communities are not invisible when we talk about economic regeneration. To give a couple of examples, private boating contributes some €44 million and the hire sector some €20 million per annum. Indirect spend amounts to €100 million, providing 3,000 full-time jobs.

It includes visiting towns and villages beside the waterways, looking at tourism and where people go to spend money in restaurants and, maybe even, to use local hotels and B & Bs. It is really important that when looking at waterways we are not just looking at the activities that happen on them: the surrounding communities have to be integral to the development of any economic benefits for people who live and work in the vicinity.

Karen McKevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I notice from the statement that the Council consented to a number of property disposals. Have any moneys been accrued from the disposal of properties and, if so, how will the moneys be deployed?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I do not have any detail on the amount of money that has been accrued or how it will be spent, but I will write to the Member and give her the detail.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am very pleased to hear about the progress of the Ulster canal. As the Minister said, it is wonderful for tourism. What is the estimated cost, and is there any likelihood of financial help from EU funds?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The estimated cost for the complete restoration of the canal is €171∙5 million. The question has been raised before about additional support from Europe and about what my Department and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht are doing to maximise the benefits of European funding. The conference and dinner that we hosted, which I mentioned in the statement, is one way of sharing knowledge throughout European countries that have waterways-based economies and leisure tourism. In addition, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) has asked that work be done on a cross-departmental basis regarding the Barroso task force.

We need to find out what additional opportunities there are to secure European funding, not just for waterways but for DCAL projects across the range of the Department. It is really important that there is additional funding rather than funding instead of. We need a full complement before us to realise the success of some of those projects. I am very aware of the need to maximise, particularly for big structural projects like this. To go back to the cost, it is 171 million pounds, not euro. I want to make that correction.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister provide an outline of what her Department is doing to enhance greater opportunities from the European funding programmes?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you for the question. In addition to what I have just outlined to the Member for South Belfast, it is important that the Barroso task force look at the entire economy of the island. In my Department I have asked officials to look specifically at opportunities in languages, waterways, arts, culture and sport. Some projects in the community have already done that and are looking for Department funds to complement what they have already secured, on the basis that it may be matched funding. Moreover, we need to interrogate better and further opportunities to make sure that we bring more opportunities for groups that are trying to develop projects that will deliver very good services and facilities.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

I thank the Minister for her statement. Do she and her counterpart in the South, Jimmy Deenihan, have any plans to appoint a board for Waterways Ireland?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

At this stage, the appointment of a board is down to the outworkings of the ongoing review of the Good Friday Agreement. If, when that review is complete, the recommendation is that a board should be appointed, then that is what will happen.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. Tá ceist agam don Aire faoin chanáil in Iúr Cinn Trá. What actions need to be taken to have Newry canal included in the remit of Waterways Ireland? Does the Minister support such a move?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member and his colleague raised that issue when last I answered questions about North/South sectoral meetings. He already knows that the Newry/Portadown canal is not within our remit; it is not one of the seven waterways for which we are responsible. I support any community that tries to seize opportunities, particularly for developing tourism and the economy, or even just for the aesthetic value that they can bring to facilities that have been run down or closed. The Member may also be aware that we need legislative change to allow for further development of the canals. I am supportive of communities and groups that come together to identify potential assets in their areas and who are doing their best to restore them.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Waterways Ireland is not a commercial organisation; it is essentially a management body. Can I, therefore, take you back to the issue of asset disposal? Are the properties that are being disposed of the same ones that you referred to in your statement in September? Where are they, and who gets the proceeds?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I do not know whether the Member was in the Chamber when this question was raised by Ms McKevitt.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It is a different question.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Regardless of that, the same answer will be given to Mr Allister. We will find out where those disposals are and we will list what happened to the money, where it was accrued and where it is going.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Has any consideration been given to the potential effect of hydraulic fracturing on inland waterways in the counties of Leitrim and Fermanagh and the water-based activities that take place in those areas?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I have to admit that I have no idea what hydraulic fracturing is. Had this been a debate on a motion I would have happily given way and allowed the Member to explain it. The activities on the waterways in Lough Erne and on the other canals all the way across are really important, and if the Member is talking about the impact of water-based tourism on the environment, a balance needs to be struck. However, even within environmental impact assessments, Waterways Ireland’s primary focus is on ensuring that there is maintenance, and that there are proper opportunities for water-based tourism and regeneration of local economies, both of which are complementary; they are not in opposition to each other.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure wishes to make a further statement to the Assembly.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following report on the thirteenth North/South Ministerial Council Language Body meeting, the ninth since the restoration of the Executive and the Assembly and the first held in 2011. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Bell, who was the accompanying Minister.

I attended the meeting in Armagh on 12 October, representing the Executive as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, along with Jonathan Bell MLA, junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Irish Government were represented by Jimmy Deenihan TD, Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs, and Dinny McGinley TD, Minister of State with special responsibility for Gaeltacht affairs.

The meeting dealt with issues relating to the language body and its two constituent agencies, tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch and Foras na Gaeilge. I will now present a summary of the issues that were discussed by the Council on 12 October 2011.

The Council received progress reports from Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency on the collaborative work and other activities of the two agencies. Those include further development of the lecture series ‘Aspects of our Shared Heritage’ to include a new lecture on the history of the languages dealing with the Flight of the Earls, the plantation of Ulster and their linguistic effects; co-operation with the Lyric Theatre and the Arts Council of Northern Ireland to produce an award-winning play about the work in the mills; and provision of joint information stands recently at Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann, the Castlewellan agricultural show, the Stormont family fun day and the bocce world cup. Preparations are also in hand for a joint cultural showcase in Belfast that will support the twinning of Listowel in County Kerry with Downpatrick in County Down.

In addition, the Council received progress reports on sharing expertise and resources on a range of corporate and HR issues; the implementation by Foras na Gaeilge of the accreditation scheme for editors, including provision of specialised training and ongoing development by Foras na Gaeilge of the national database of terms, which can be found at www.focal.ie; and delivery by the Ulster-Scots Agency of music and dance tuition to over 8,000 participants through the peripatetic tutor programme and 31 Ulster-Scots community summer schemes.

The Council discussed progress on the development of the North/South Language Body’s corporate plan 2011-13 and the business plan and budget 2011. Ministers noted that the draft 2012 business plans for Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency have been prepared, with the plans focusing on each agency’s key priorities. The draft plans are awaiting approval from the respective boards before submission to the sponsor and Finance Departments for approval. The finalised plans will be brought forward for approval by the NSMC at a future meeting.

The NSMC noted that the 2008 annual report and draft accounts have been submitted to the comptroller and auditor general (C&AG) in each jurisdiction, and, following certification and consolidation, they will be laid before the Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as possible. Ministers further noted that audit fieldwork has been completed in respect of the 2009 annual report and accounts, and consolidation will follow as soon as possible. Draft accounts have been filed in respect of 2010, and dates are awaited from the comptrollers and auditors general in regard to audit fieldwork. Ministers also noted that a new simplified consolidation process will be introduced, subject to the approval of Finance Departments. A further progress report on those matters will be made at the next NSMC language body meeting.

The NSMC noted that the board of Foras na Gaeilge has extended the contract of the chief executive officer (CEO) of Foras na Gaeilge, Ferdie Mac an Fhailigh, for a further period of five years.

Ministers noted the progress that has been made to date by Foras na Gaeilge with regard to the preparation of a portfolio of draft schemes for the new competitive funding model, which has the objective of achieving significant benefits around value for money and the effective delivery of Foras na Gaeilge’s statutory obligations. Having considered that progress, the NSMC requested Foras na Gaeilge to take forward a further 12-week consultation about the portfolio of draft schemes, particularly with the core funded bodies; ensure that relevant statutory bodies are given the opportunity to consider the impact of the draft schemes on their areas of operation; amend the portfolio of draft schemes as necessary and appropriate, having regard to the extended consultation process; prepare a detailed business case, with independent assistance if necessary, in support of the portfolio of draft schemes; and to prepare a revised project plan in conjunction with the sponsor Departments that will have due regard to the completion of the review process as a matter of urgency.

The NSMC agreed that an order be made at the appropriate time under section 28(2)(b) of the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999 to delete the reference to the organisations that are listed in the table to the section. Ministers requested a further progress report at the next NSMC language body meeting.

The NSMC noted the completion of the review of Áis, which is the book distribution service of Foras na Gaeilge, and requested that Foras na Gaeilge agree a detailed implementation plan with the sponsor Departments in regard to the recommendations in the review of Áis and report on progress at the next NSMC language body meeting. The Council agreed to hold its next language body meeting in February 2012.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

During the previous NSMC statement to the House, considerable concern was raised about the delays to the publication of the annual reports and accounts for the North/South Language Body. Can the Minister be more specific about the timetable for the introduction of the new simplified consolidation process and provide assurances that there will be no further delays in the publication of future annual reports and accounts?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question on what has been an ongoing theme, particularly with regard to the accounting and reporting mechanisms. The problem goes back to well before my time, but I appreciate that there are concerns about the reporting processes, which the Committee has articulated. I am not in a position to say that, by February 2012, all of that will be agreed and sorted out. However, I am in a position to say that everything that can be done on auditing and accounting procedures is being done by both Departments and both Finance Ministers to ensure that there is an easier process for the Council’s reporting and, indeed, for consolidation. In due course, the accounts will be laid in the Assembly and the Oireachtas, and, notwithstanding that, they will need to be passed at the next NSMC meeting. It is our ambition to do everything that we can to achieve that target, but I am not in a position to say that that will be the case.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

Can the Minister confirm that the Ulster-Scots Agency has not yet reached its full staff complement? If so, what effect has that had on the delivery of its needs and services?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. The Ulster-Scots Agency is proactively trying to fill its full staff complement as we speak. That has had no effect on its delivery, either to groups or communities, or on its progress on monitoring procedures and reporting to both Departments. I am content that the Ulster-Scots Agency is doing everything in its power to achieve its full complement of staff.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, you referred to the implementation by Foras na Gaeilge of the accreditation scheme for editors, including the provision of specialised training and the ongoing development by Foras na Gaeilge of a national database of terms. Is the Minister aware of anything similar by Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch, and, if not, will she pursue that matter with it?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am aware that there are similar projects, but they are at completely different levels. I have met the Ulster-Scots Agency and the ministerial advisory group on Ulster Scots, and we discussed that and several other matters. I am not pushing, nudging or suggesting that groups go down that road if they are not ready. If they are working towards that and need support and help from us to achieve targets, that is completely different. I would not suggest that the Ulster-Scots Agency should be at the same level of accreditation as Foras na Gaeilge; it is just not there yet.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas arís leis an Aire as an ráiteas seo ar an Fhoras Teanga. I thank the Minister for her statement on the language body.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an síneadh a cuireadh leis an tréimhse chomhairliúcháin do na grúpaí bun-mhaoinithe. I welcome the 12-week extension to the consultation on the proposals for the core-funded groups. Can the Minister assure us that those who respond to that consultation will be listened to and that, in due course, the proposals will be changed?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question and, indeed, his ongoing interest in the issue of core funding for the groups that are involved with the Irish language. We listened to what people said, including the Committee and many others. In previous consultations, there was a perception that people felt that they could not participate fully or as much as they would have liked. Having listened to everything that everyone had said, we decided, with the approval of the NSMC, to have an additional 12-week consultation. It is extremely cynical to suggest that we will put something out for consultation and not listen to what people have to say.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I asked you a question.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I want it on the record that the schemes are there in draft form. I implore people to use as fully as possible this opportunity to participate in the consultation. I refer not just to the core-funded groups but to the constituencies that rely on the services of those groups and the statutory bodies that have operational links with them. If the draft schemes need amended or changed to meet the needs of the core-funded groups and those constituencies, this is the opportunity to do that.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The Minister talked about the core-funded groups in the North. Before I came to the Chamber this morning, I was at a meeting with the Irish language sector. Those core-funded organisations are very concerned about funding status, because they have funding until only Christmas. Can the Minister shed some light on that, please?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

It is welcome that the Member attended that event. I do not know where Christmas as a date came from, so I will clarify for the Member and for other Members that the funding is until June 2012.

I share the concerns of any group that is trying to secure additional and future funding. I worked in the community and voluntary sector for over 12 years, and I know exactly what it is like to live on protective notice from one three-month period to another. It is not a good place to be, and I do not think that it helps the sector. The sector feels as though it is almost an afterthought rather than being, as it should be, at the heart of government.

That having been said, the draft schemes are there for consultation, and I cannot envisage a better time for people to give their views, opinions and ideas on better service delivery not only to make sure that the people who need the services get them in a much more efficient and effective way but to ensure the long-term future of the core-funded groups and their work.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Having raised this matter previously, I note that discussions have taken place regarding corporate and HR issues. Considering the general economic difficulties facing government, can the Minister give us further details on those matters?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Maybe the suggestion behind the question is about how the funding for all-Ireland bodies such as those for waterways and languages does not help to deliver economic benefits in some way. I do not know whether that is where the Member is coming from, but I can clearly say, as I have said in previous statements on those bodies, that they help the economy through employment, the development of skills and future sustainability. If the Member would like to write to me about something specific, I would be happy to answer that.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. Will she outline joint projects delivered by Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Some projects were listed in the statement, such as the provision of joint stands at the Boccia World Cup, the Stormont family fun day and the Castlewellan agricultural show. However, one dimension that deals with aspects of our shared heritage is a series of joint lectures run by Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency. That series covers subjects and topics on shared musical heritage, place names and the influence of indigenous languages. Each agency also has a list of lecturers. The use of past experience to develop that dimension in conjunction with both agencies so that new programmes can be brought forward is happening as we speak. However, the work that the agencies have engaged in so far together has been very good, particularly in helping to promote shared and better relations.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas arís leis an Aire as a ráiteas. Will the Minister tell us what has caused the delay in publishing the North/South accounts and reports?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I spoke briefly to the Committee Chair about some of the delays. In 2000 and 2001, the Northern Ireland Audit Office qualified the accounts. There was a delay in signing off on the bodies’ consolidated accounts. That did eventually happen in 2004, and, as a result of the delay, the 2000 reports and accounts were not published until 2005. Subsequent annual reports and accounts were also delayed as the Northern Ireland Audit Office audits the accounts on a chronological basis. So, as I mentioned to the Chair in a previous answer, I appreciate that that issue has been ongoing, but I am content that Minister Deenihan and I, both sets of auditors and, indeed, both Finance Ministers are working towards better reporting of accounts and an easier and more effective way of consolidating both sets of accounts.

Karen McKevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I also thank the Minister for her statement. Has she had any discussions about the Irish language legislation with her counterparts from the South, and, if so, what has she learned that would be useful for us up here?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I have not had any detailed discussions with my counterparts in the South on the legislation, but I understand that their strategy is for 20 years. Between the North/South sectoral meetings, I will have further meetings on legislation, Acht na Gaeilge and strategies for the Irish language and Ulster Scots.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Arís eile, gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an ráitis atá os ár gcomhair inniu. Maidir leis an phlean chorporáideach agus gnó, tchím anseo go ndearna an tAire tagairt don dul chun cinn ar fhorbairt an phlean chorporáidigh sin. An féidir liom ceist a chur ar an Aire an féidir léi tuilleadh eolais a thabhairt dúinn ar an dul chun cinn ar an méid a rinneadh? I thank the Minister for her statement, in which she referred to progress being made on the development of the North/South Language Body corporate plan. Will she provide us with some detail on the progress that was made?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The detail on the Foras na Gaeilge languages corporate plan was that, first, the staff complement that was needed for Áis, the book project, has been achieved. So, the potential for making money has been realised. That was not realised until the last sectoral meeting, when we agreed the complement of staff. We have further secured the additional five years for the chief executive, and that will give some security. Indeed, progress has been made on an agreement for the corporate plan, which looked at whether the consultation on core-funded organisations should continue for a further 12 weeks. Given the nature of core funding, both Ministers agree that it is really important that everybody uses the opportunity to feed into the consultation, and, when the consultation progresses and reports are made, that will be fed into further and the revision will be made into a corporate plan for Foras na Gaeilge.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for her statement and immediately apologise for raising the issue of the late return of accounts. I do it because I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a really handy way of knocking North/South bodies. Can she assure the House that this is the last time that this issue will dominate questions on the North/South Language Body?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. I do not think for one minute that he is raising it just to make a point; he has raised it consistently. Unfortunately, the delay in the accounts has been raised consistently. It is worth repeating that everything that can be done will be done, and it is also worth noting that the delay was caused in 2000 and 2001 — Danny is smirking — on the watch of Michael McGimpsey, when the chair of the Ulster-Scots Agency, Lord Laird, refused to sign the accounts. Ever since then, there has been a bottleneck in the system. Notwithstanding that, there are — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Minister to continue.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

There are concerns because both jurisdictions have different accounting procedures and different processes. They need to be harmonised and consolidated to make sure that I am not standing here after each sectoral meeting making the same apology.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I shall stay with the issue of accounts. What does the fact that this issue is still being attended to a decade on say about accountability and transparency? Ministers have been promising for years that they have been working towards, to use this Minister’s words, the resolution of this matter, yet the accounts and annual reports for 2008, 2009 or 2010 have still not seen the light of day. What sort of ministerial oversight allows that scandal to continue? Does the Minister just not care?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I totally care about the process of accountability. The Member has raised this before, and, each time, his concerns bounce from one section of the issue to another. The fact of the matter is that both bodies — Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency — through my Department and the Departments in the South, are in keeping with and above what we expect of them in their accounts and accounts management, as well as in their spending performance. The difficulty has been caused by a legacy of bottlenecks in the accounts procedures. As I said — the Member was here when I said it — this started in 2000 and 2001. As for accountability, the fact that I am standing here talking about these delays and giving explanations, albeit that the Member and others are not happy and do not like it, is the process to which the Assembly is signed up.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. That ends questions on the ministerial statement.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I hope that is not me. Mr Speaker; I apologise for that. Clearly, senior executives in Roads Service did not know where I was.

For some strange reason, the Minister, in one of her later responses, chose to mention me by name. I was having a perfectly innocent time in the Chamber and smiled weakly at her to encourage her in what seemed to be a very difficult situation. What protocols are there that would enable the Minister to somehow chastise me and seek to apportion blame for a situation that I have no responsibility for but that chiefly seems to be her fault? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have listened very carefully to what Mr Kennedy has said in his point of order. Perhaps this is an issue that both Executive Ministers could resolve outside the Chamber. They could try to have a conversation to resolve it.

Private Members’ Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As two amendments have been selected, the Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 45 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the potential social and economic benefits which the utilisation of former security sites, such as the site of the Maze prison, can bring to Northern Ireland; notes with concern the proposals to build a “peace-building and conflict resolution centre” at the site; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to develop this site in a way which is practical and inoffensive to victims.

The issue of the Maze site is clearly of significant relevance and strategic importance to Northern Ireland, as are the former military sites. I have looked at some of those sites and their ongoing development. Ilex in Londonderry is developing the Ebrington site as well as Fort George. Having recently visited the area with colleagues, I have seen that the ongoing development there is significant and will hopefully be a major boost to the north-west in a very short time. Obviously, that can only be good for Northern Ireland. I also note the proposals for the Lisanelly site in Omagh, where the proposed educational campus is planned, although there appears to be some delay with that. I am pleased that the First Minister and the Acting deputy First Minister are here. I am not sure whether the latter, in his role as Education Minister, can enlighten us any further at this stage as to progress at Lisanelly. However, that may be a debate for another day.

I want to see development at the Maze that will enhance Northern Ireland strategically and be of huge importance to the entire community. The consultative group and consultation panel met some time ago, and I think that all the main political parties in Northern Ireland were represented. They brought forward proposals to the Ministers at that time, and the direct rule Ministers then brought forward the Maze master plan, as I call it, which included the national stadium, the conflict transformation centre and the equestrian centre of excellence as well as potential economic development and housing. It seemed to be work in progress at that time. However, at some stage in OFMDFM the whole master plan was pulled, and the Department started to look at new developments.

I am pleased that the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society is looking at the site. Hopefully, those discussions are ongoing and will come to a positive conclusion in the near future. Obviously, there is quite an incentive for it to move. It would be a huge opportunity for the organisation to have a site outside Belfast and somewhere that would be more accessible for big events.

The Ulster Unionist Party supports the concept of a peace-building centre and wants to see that happening. At this stage and given it in isolation, we do not believe that the Maze site is the most appropriate site because of its historical nature. If it were developed along with the rest of the proposals in the Maze master plan, it would be a much bigger and wider development, and Northern Ireland could have a series of developments on site that could bring huge capability to the whole of Northern Ireland.

I praise the Ulster Aviation Society, which does a huge amount of good work at the Maze. I have visited its site and seen what is on display. The exhibitions are great, and I hope that there will be support for that proposal to be developed. The society is a voluntary organisation, and many individuals put a lot of work into it.

The Ulster Unionist Party has concerns about the current proposal for the conflict centre, the resolution centre or the conflict transformation centre — whatever name is put on it. Some time ago, I asked to see the application form for the funding for the centre. I did not get it, and I am not sure what the proposals are with regard to the development process. If there were less secrecy about the proposal, maybe we could look at it in a more strategic and definitive manner. Hopefully, that can go out for consultation at some stage. I would like to hear from the First Minister or the Acting deputy First Minister about how much consultation there has been on the current proposal for the conflict transformation centre and the responses that have been received. I have received representation from victims’ groups who have significant concerns about the proposal for a stand-alone centre.

There is a huge gap now. We have missed out on the overall Maze development that was in the master plan. I assume that the First Minister or Acting deputy First Minister will bring forward ideas today on where we are going with the entire project. I know that they are in the process of setting up the body corporation. Maybe they can give us some insight into where that is going.

At this stage, we have significant concerns about the conflict transformation centre, especially in light of the fact that we do not have the information on the funding application and it was not made available to us, and we have concerns about the proposal itself.

Finally, I understand that a funding application of £20 million has been put forward to the SEUPB.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The Member has indicated that he has concerns about the conflict transformation centre. Will the Member expand on the concerns that were expressed to him by victims or victims’ groups or, alternatively or in addition, the concerns that he and his party have about the centre?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that. The concerns are from victims’ groups, in particular. They believe that it could be some sort of terrorist shrine. Since there is so much secrecy and we do not have the information on it, we, or I in particular, cannot answer their questions. That is the main concern. I would like to address those concerns. I would like to give those people some type of positive answer. If we can do that, so much the better.

My final point relates to the £20 million application to the SEUPB. Is that additional money coming into Northern Ireland through Peace funding, or is it part of the Peace III money that will be taken away from other community groups on the ground, which, in these times of austerity, are in very bad need of that money? If it is additional money, it is, obviously, beneficial; if it is coming out of the block that we already get, we need to know that, and we need to know what groups will suffer because of it.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “Northern Ireland;” and insert

“acknowledges that the transformation of the Maze/Long Kesh site into a peace-building and conflict resolution centre must have due regard to the needs of victims and survivors; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to prioritise this need whilst urgently progressing a development and job creation strategy for the site.”

The former Maze/Long Kesh site offers an opportunity that, to date, has been missed, and I hope that it is not too late. Our amendment calls for that opportunity to be fully utilised. There is obvious potential economic benefit to be had from it. It would have a positive impact on the construction sector, and it has the potential to provide a boost in tourism numbers. However, that potential will be fulfilled only if the Executive implement a jobs creation and investment strategy for the site. The site also provides a tremendous opportunity for the Balmoral show. If it were transferred to the site, it could create a major agriculture show for the whole island, second only to the national ploughing championships.

The Maze/Long Kesh site reminds us of the utter failure of the Assembly to address the issues around our troubled past. The conflict transformation centre proposed for the site can and should play an important role in addressing that issue. If such a centre is to be truly worthwhile, it should be centred on real and hard issues. It should not be a centre for self-congratulation. The residues of the conflict are still real and raw. That is evident in the victims’ and survivors’ continuing frustration that the Executive have not agreed a comprehensive mechanism for dealing with the past. There is also the residue of paramilitarism, with attacks on our people and our peace, not least in my own city of Derry.

There is an opportunity for the centre to be tasked with dealing with the coming decade of centenaries. The transformative decade that shaped the island for the last century through conflict, identify and the tragedy of partition is set to be celebrated or commemorated throughout Ireland. Our complex past is, therefore, very much on the horizon of our immediate future. The commemorations of the signing of the Ulster covenant and those of the Somme, the Easter rising, the civil war and, ultimately, partition are events that need the combined leadership of all strands of political opinion and leadership on this island. The conflict transformation centre should be tasked with giving the necessary expertise to ensure that the forthcoming debate and reflection on our history is approached in a mature and responsible fashion.

Given the recession, I hope that it is not too late. It is true that the Maze/Long Kesh site has the potential not only to have a major impact on the area’s economic future but to allow a mature discussion to be had about our past. Hopefully, that will help in some way to bring reconciliation closer.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out “with concern”.

I want to address some of the other points that have not yet been covered. It is unfortunate that the first two contributions majored immediately on the conflict transformation centre. Let us remind ourselves of what the Maze/Long Kesh site is capable of delivering. It is a 350-acre strategic development opportunity that is twice the size of the Titanic Quarter. It is located directly beside the Blaris site, which is 400 acres and which has been given approval, in principle, in the Department of the Environment’s master plan for the area. I feel that the Maze site and the Blaris site could create a massive opportunity for job creation in Northern Ireland. It is important that we set the context correctly for all this.

It has been estimated that 60% of the population can reach the Maze site within 30 minutes and that 80% of our population can reach it within one hour. It has the best access routes from the west, south and north of the Province, and, strategically, its location in relation to the Republic of Ireland will allow it to capitalise on flights coming in to Dublin airport. The site has the potential to create massive investment opportunities, and the master plan for the site indicated that up to 6,000 jobs could be created. At this time of economic difficulty, it is important that we drive forward the opportunity that the site presents.

The history of the site has quite a range of interests. Originally, in the vocabulary of the local people, it was known as Long Kesh. It was a site for the Royal Air Force, when it was known officially as RAF Long Kesh. Indeed, the British military association with the site, prior to its becoming a prison, is one that we can have immense pride in. When I spoke on this issue in the House before the previous election, I pointed out some of that history. The site was visited by President Eisenhower during the Second World War and by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Indeed, the first flight taken by our own queen, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, was to RAF Long Kesh. Members need to be aware of that history and not just of the more commonly known recent history that relates to the prison. That is why I have a particular difficulty when republicans consistently refer to the site as “Long Kesh”. Clearly, there is a drive to romanticise what happened during the period when the site was a prison, particularly on the part of republicans. However, there was no romanticism during that period. That was a period of our past that was wrong and that should never have happened. We should never allow what happened to be forgotten, particularly by those who were incarcerated during that period. We should also not allow the term “Long Kesh” to be hijacked by republicans. The site was commonly and locally known as Long Kesh in the past, and I have no difficulty in referring to it as Long Kesh or, officially, as the Maze/Long Kesh.

In the more recent past, the site became known as HMP Maze, and we can never forget what happened during that period. I will particularly never forget the fact that 29 prison officers lost their life during our conflict. I declare an interest, because family members of mine served in the Prison Service.

Many more were injured physically during the time that they served in our prisons and particularly at the Maze. Many who had to work in that institution still bear the mental hallmarks of the period. We can never forget the sacrifice that was paid by those individuals during that time.

The motion particularly notes the conflict resolution centre. Given that it was tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party, I find it very difficult to understand why that party has highlighted this particular issue. Of all parties, it has its hallmarks all over the fact that the conflict resolution centre ever got on to the paper that was produced by the direct rule Ministers. It was the Maze consultation panel’s final report of 2005 that recommended that there should be an international centre for conflict resolution. I and my party supported that recommendation at the time, and we still support it. However, the hypocrisy coming from the Benches of the Ulster Unionist Party is completely and utterly rank. Over the weekend, at that party’s conference, its chairman, David Campbell, said that he felt that the contribution made by the party over the past decade has not been recognised or valued in how it moved the process on.

I want to pay tribute to David Campbell, the chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party, for the work that he has done in moving Northern Ireland forward, particularly for his work as chairman of the Maze consultation panel that produced the 2005 report. I will cite a couple of the recommendations that came out of that report under his chairmanship. The report says:

“We believe that the site would be an ideal location for an International Centre for Conflict Transformation and as such has the potential to play an important part in promoting a shared society.”

Now, the leader of that party says that it does not believe that the Maze is an ideal location for a conflict transformation centre. That is not what the current chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party said when he was chairman of the Maze panel.

The report went on to say:

“The development of an International Centre for Conflict Transformation would add considerably to the synergy of the other proposed developments, and help to establish the international profile and identity of the Maze/Long Kesh.”

So, the panel recommended that the proposal would work with all the other aspects that were proposed for the industrial and commercial development of the site and would sit well with and support the promotion of the entire site.

Obviously, there was concern, and the Member referred to it, that the site could become a shrine. That exercised our minds and those of the party on the Benches beside me at the time. I supported the recommendation of the panel chaired by David Campbell of the Ulster Unionist Party, which was:

“The facility would be a neutral, inclusive and constructive ‘place apart’, to be used by organisations and communities to further the cause of conflict transformation.”

It was to be a “neutral” site. Just to be absolutely clear, the report made another recommendation:

“To be successful, it will be essential for the facility to be genuinely neutral and inclusive, and not perceived as being owned by any one section of society.”

So, let us be clear: there will be no shrine at the Maze. There never will be. The site was never envisaged as a shrine. As long as my party holds the position of First Minister, we will ensure that there will never be a shrine at the Maze.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

No, I will not give way; I want to continue my speech.

When the Ulster Unionist Party raises this issue, it does a disservice to those whom it purports to represent, namely, the victims. It uses the victims in a very callous manner in order to try to make a political issue of a site that has the potential to drive economic regeneration in Northern Ireland.

Given the work done by David Campbell, along with that done by this party, to ensure that the centre would never be a shrine, the Ulster Unionist Party should reflect on what it does in using victims to politicise this issue.

If the Members beside me were genuinely interested in victims, why did they support the Belfast Agreement and thereby agree to prisoners being released from the Maze? It was not my party but the party beside me that released those prisoners. It signed up to an agreement under which prisoners were released, causing hurt and harm to victims who had suffered during that period. I will not take that hypocrisy from the Members opposite. We have ensured that the Maze site will never become a shrine, as has our First Minister. I pay tribute to David Campbell who joined with our party to ensure that the site never becomes a shrine. I, therefore, commend my party’s amendment to the House. I will also be supporting the SDLP’s amendment.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht seo, nó is tionscadal an-tábhachtach é ar fad. Beimid ag tabhairt tacaíochta don dá leasú.

History or, indeed, her story is very subjective, especially in a society that is coming out of conflict. We all have our starting points and analyses, and we are all very affected by our experiences and those of the communities that we represent. There is validity to all our histories, or her stories, whether you are a republican, a loyalist, a member of the British Army, a member of the RUC, someone who has worked at Long Kesh, or someone who has been a guest there. We obviously do not all agree with one another. We all have differing and varying analyses of the root causes of the conflict and different views on the role of the British state in the conflict. However, I hope that we have moved to a situation where each of us recognises that people from every community have suffered, that in our society many people are disadvantaged and marginalised and that each of us is trying to build a better future for all our people.

Last week, I was in University College Dublin (UCD) debating with Basil McCrea, Jim Wells and Peter Weir. We obviously aired our differences there, but what struck me and, indeed, the audience during and after the debate was that we all supported the peace process and felt that we are in a better place than we were in the past and that change is badly needed in our society. No one should be afraid of supporting diversity and equality, of making our society more inclusive and of studying the root causes of our conflict so that it never happens again. Those who ignore our history are destined to repeat it.

The 360-acre site provides us with a unique opportunity to export our experience of peace-building and conflict resolution, difficult as it has been, through support for delegations to and from different parts of the world that are emerging from conflict. It provides us with the possibility of maximising the economic, historical and reconciliation potential of the site. It also provides us with an opportunity to support research and practical learning. It has the potential to provide us with an opportunity for all stories to be told, including those about the prison, World War II, the peace process and international experiences. It would provide much-needed jobs for the construction and tourism industries and help to further develop the Belfast-Dublin corridor.

I, along with the OFMDFM Committee, visited the Long Kesh site, the prison and the Ulster Aviation Society hangar. I listened to Tom Elliott, who was part of that delegation, speaking on ‘Hearts and Minds’ the other night about his party’s support for equality. So, my question to the UUP and Tom is this: what are you afraid of? Why the selective approach? What is needed here is leadership, not hollow words about equality — ceannaireacht — Ar aghaidh linn le chéile. Tá todhchaí níos éagsúla de dhíth orainn go léir.

Let us continue to work together to build a diverse, dynamic future and a society that is at ease with itself and provides opportunities for all our citizens. Let us not play politics with victims.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

It is good to get an opportunity to revisit the issue of the Maze site. I am grateful to Mr Elliott and his colleagues for bringing the matter back to the House, even though I do not particularly agree with their motion.

The motion has three parts to it. Mr Elliott clarified the situation with the conflict transformation centre. It is quite obvious — correct me if I am wrong — that he does not want such a centre in any format at the Maze, so we will not be supporting the motion. However, we are happy to support the SDLP amendment and, if necessary, the DUP amendment.

The Member who spoke previously referred to the consultation panel. I sat on the final consultation panel for the Maze under the chairmanship of Mr Poots, who is here today. Certainly, it was my impression that all parties agreed that there would be a conflict transformation centre as part of the overall master plan for the Maze site. That was during direct rule. We definitely saw such a centre as part of the development. Again, I stand ready to be corrected, but I think that the Ulster Unionists were represented on that panel and were fully —

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that that was in the overall context of the Maze master plan and not of a stand-alone conflict transformation centre, as I have explained?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member will have a minute added to his time.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I accept that at that time, it was in the context of overall development. However, we are still talking about the overall development of the site.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

— [Interruption.]

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I will come to that. We should not talk in piecemeal terms about the site but about its overall development. As far as I am concerned, the only possible site for the type of conflict transformation centre that was envisaged by all parties at that time is on part of the Maze site. It does not make any sense to put it anywhere else. I heard the suggestion that a centre could go somewhere else in Northern Ireland, but I really do not think so.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

No, thank you.

We have heard so much about the Maze development. I wonder why no serious progress has been made. In 2001, I joined Lisburn City Council. That was 10 years ago. The Maze development was a live issue then. I suppose that it is still a live issue. I do not mean to be flippant in any way, Mr Speaker. However, so far, some old buildings have been demolished and a nice new entrance has been put up. That is about it. I am aware that there has been remedial work, decontamination, and so on, but, basically, nothing has happened.

We have also abandoned what a lot of us thought was an excellent stadium proposal for reasons that are, perhaps, not unconnected with the other topic that we are talking about, namely the conflict transformation centre, or, to put it in another way, unionists’ inability to countenance, at that time, a conflict transformation centre or a stadium somewhere other than Belfast. I note that the DUP amendment removes the issue of concern about the principle of such a centre. That indicates that the party is now on board. Mr Givan confirmed that quite adequately. The DUP will now agree to the centre as long as it is practical and inoffensive.

Obviously, there is ongoing concern about a terrorist shrine. I wonder what it is about that proposal that continues to frighten unionists. Our history and the path to peace in Northern Ireland are matters of world interest. The history of the Maze is integral to that. I take Mr Givan’s point in particular about the wider history of the Maze. However, there is no doubt that the main focus of world attention has been on the past 40 years. The Maze prison is absolutely central to that.

The Maze panel had information on similar projects around the world. Some were based in disused prisons, others were not. The fear that the one at the Maze could become some kind of a shrine or place of pilgrimage really has no foundation whatsoever. The history to be told covers all sections of society. There is no way that a properly planned centre would be allowed to evolve in any other way. The project would have to be controlled by OFMDFM either directly or through the medium of the Maze development corporation. That is another body that it seems to be taking an eternity to establish. Perhaps the First Minister can update the House on progress towards its establishment. I think that it has now been over a year since the promised implementation date was passed.

The SDLP amendment makes sense. My party will support it even though I could be pedantic and point out that it seems to refer to the whole site when only a few acres of it are needed for a transformation centre. It also expresses the need to progress urgently a development and job creation strategy for the site. That wish is reflected in the original motion. I hope that the First Minister will comment on that as well.

At the moment, there is an empty site of over 300 acres. There is a discontinued stadium plan and master plan that cost several million pounds. The only semi-concrete proposal is the one for the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS). I wonder whether it is having second thoughts. Is there any other genuine expression of interest in using the site? Again, perhaps the First Minister can enlighten us.

Progress is so painfully slow. We really do need some activity, action and regeneration — not regeneration of the site but regeneration of the process.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This is a very interesting subject, and it is very interesting that the Ulster Unionists have brought the matter forward now. One can see only rank hypocrisy from the Ulster Unionist Benches.

For many years, the Maze site was a matter of discussion. I have been integrally involved from the outset — along with the Ulster Unionist Party, I have to say. David Campbell was chairman of the Maze consultation panel for many years. I sat under his chairmanship, just as the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party now sits under his chairmanship. Through working intensively on the issues, we arrived at a position that was acceptable to the Ulster Unionist Party then and to the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party then. Indeed, it was acceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party then. The difference is that it is still acceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party, because we dealt with the issues at the time.

It was made very clear by the then direct rule Ministers that it was not up to the panel members to make a decision on behalf of their parties. Rather, they had to be able to demonstrate that they had their parties’ support. Mr Campbell received the support of the Ulster Unionist Party for the proposal to develop the conflict transformation centre at the site. In 2005, I received the support of the Democratic Unionist Party for that development. As I recall, the proposal went to the party officers of the Democratic Unionist Party, and everyone in the Chamber will know that the party officers at that time included Mr Allister, who sheds crocodile tears over the issue now yet did not raise it as an issue then.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will give way if it is a genuine intervention.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It is indeed. Before he gets obsessed with my position, he might like to reflect on the position of his deputy leader, Mr Nigel Dodds, who is on record as saying:

“However it is dressed up, whatever spin is deployed, the preservation of a section of the H-Blocks — including the hospital wing — would become a shrine to the terrorists who committed suicide in the Maze in the 1980s ... That would be obnoxious to the vast majority of people and is something unionist people cannot accept.”

Therefore, before the Member turns his attention to me, who never assented to any shrine, would he like to deal with how it is that his deputy leader seemed to have and still has — for he has never repudiated his statement — the same concerns? That raises the question: if you need a conflict resolution centre, why do you need to retain the buildings? Why do you need it at the Maze?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have reminded the House on so many occasions that interventions should not be long statements.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I see that Mr Allister has reverted to his usual tactic of washing his hands of the issues — the Pontius Pilate.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What about Nigel Dodds?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr Allister was there in 2005 when the proposal came forward, and he did not object to it then.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What about Nigel Dodds?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Nor did Mr Allister, or any of the Ulster Unionists, object to the buildings’ being listed in the first instance. The record will show who made the objections to the then Environment and Heritage Service. It was Jeffrey Donaldson and Edwin Poots, on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, who made the objections, who went to see the Environment and Heritage Service, who made the case for it —

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Why did you not make the case when you were the Minister?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor. Every other Member who wanted the opportunity to speak in the debate got that opportunity. Members should not shout from a sedentary position.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not really mind the flak, Mr Speaker, because, when you throw a dog into a pack of hounds, the ones that yelp the loudest are the ones that are hurt the most. The fact of life is that, of the parties to my right, neither the TUV — I do not know whether I should describe it as a party, because it is a single person — nor the Ulster Unionist Party voiced one smidgeon of opposition to the listing of those buildings at that time. They want to close the door after the horse has bolted. You are being shown up as the hypocrites that you are. The work that was done —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order to use language that ascribes to Members the term “hypocrites”?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask all Members to moderate their language, please, especially in the Chamber.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I was referring to the parties, but I see that some people are very touchy. They do not like being faced with robust debate; they just like to be robust in their comments when they do not have the opportunity for a response.

It was made very clear during negotiations and in the report that the site would be a neutral, inclusive and constructive place. None of that relates to a shrine. Northern Ireland went through a dreadful period for many years. The Maze is one of the greatest reflections of why we should never go back to that. Thousands of years of people’s lives were lost in that prison. Thousands of lives were lost as a consequence of the actions of people who ended up in that prison. There is something there to tell the rest of the world, and an opportunity to encourage people from across the world that, here in Northern Ireland, we have moved on and moved forward. We can point to what has happened and to the Maze as a symbol of everything that was wrong in Northern Ireland. We can step forward from that, leave it behind, and encourage and incentivise others who may be considering going down the route that Northern Ireland did to desist and resist for their own well-being.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The usual roles in the Chamber have been taken during the debate, but I see this as an opportunity to move the process along. It is perhaps strange that the Ulster Unionists proposed the motion. It did not come through the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which visited the site on a couple of occasions. Hopefully, the debate will encourage the regeneration of the Maze/Long Kesh site, and we will see movement on the setting up of the corporate body to move things along.

As for the idea of a shrine or there being a romantic attraction to the site, having visited it several times, with families on many occasions, I see no romantic attraction to the Maze/Long Kesh. It is certainly nothing for anyone to look back on with pride, from either those who worked in it or those who were prisoners there. It was a harsh time and it is a harsh site, and there is no romanticism to it. It was a time that, hopefully, we will never return to. If the buildings do anything, they remind people of the harsh reality of what the conflict was about and how it affected so many people’s lives over the years.

Another reminder is the World War II site, because the aircraft hangars are there. The Committee visited the Ulster Aviation Society museum at the site. That is another part of the site that can be developed. It reminds people of the traumas of the world wars. Again, there is no romanticism about that.

There is an opportunity to recognise conflict in various forms, to bring it into perspective, to recognise it, and to recognise some of the achievements of that time. The conflict resolution centre is an opportunity for victims from all sides to tell their stories: from the point of view of prison officers, prisoners, relatives who visited the site, and those who went through traumas in various ways, such as children who visited parents and people who had to trek up and down the road to it.

That is the past, and now is an opportunity in the development of the Long Kesh site to look to and build for the future. There is an opportunity to develop the site and to create a new future and a new beginning for people. It is a massive site — 350 acres — and if it were being handed to anyone at a time of severe economic decline with an opportunity to build on it, they should grasp it with both hands.

We have an opportunity to create a corporate body, which will develop the site and bring economic prosperity to regenerate it and to create opportunities. As far as I understand it, the RUAS is ready and willing to move to the site and expand its remit on it. That will attract other businesses, shows and developments to the site.

The site is ideally situated, in close proximity to the motorway, railway and airport. Therefore, it is an ideal location for development. We should not miss this opportunity and we should not allow it to drag on any further. We need to get the corporate body set up, start putting plans in place and start delivering on people’s vision for the site. Let us not dwell continuously on the past. I am not saying that we should ignore the past or forget it, but we should move on to try to create a better future for the victims of the past. Go raibh maith agat.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

It is probably timely that I follow on from the previous Member to speak because I think that he was the first Member to have included the other people who can tell their stories. I am happy to put on record that when the idea was first mooted, I was concerned because the whole emphasis was that the site would be a shrine and that others would never be included in the proposals. However, as the proposals expanded, provision for others to tell their stories was included.

At the start, when the idea grew legs, there was concern from some people in the unionist population that the site would be a shrine, but I thank the First Minister and deputy First Minister and their good offices for including the stories that we are now going to tell for the RUC, the army, prison staff, civilians and the Fire Service. There was a fear that those would not be told, but I am glad that that issue has been addressed. It has allayed my fears.

Another very important issue, which has been touched on today, is that victims are going to get the opportunity to tell their stories. We should never forget the victims. There were prisoners only because there were victims in the first place. The prisoners created the victims, and, equally, the victims should have an opportunity to tell their stories.

As the previous Member who spoke said, we look at the economic climate today and at the size and scale of the site. We have a 350-acre site, and we have an opportunity. Many of us are being lobbied about construction jobs and roads. Indeed, there seems to be an emphasis on it, and many of us received letters today in relation to the A5 to try to encourage more investment in Northern Ireland. We have an excellent opportunity here for a multimillion pound investment. We need to redevelop the site and, therefore, I welcome it from that point of view.

There is also the tourism potential of the site. We should never take away from the opportunity to create a vast array of things there in the future. The other thing that gives me the greatest confidence is that we are not handing the site over to someone to do what they wish with it. OFMDFM will always have full control over the conflict transformation centre. While we have a devolved institution in Northern Ireland, that gives me confidence, and I hope that it will give the wider public confidence that the site will not be left to someone to do as they wish with it; it will be up to the democratic process in the Assembly.

To touch again on the conflict transformation centre, I said that I was sceptical about it at the start, given the troubled past that, unfortunately, we have had in Northern Ireland. However, when I got married 21 years ago, I went to Jersey for my honeymoon, and I remember paying to visit a German underground hospital. Therefore, people in other areas have had the foresight to use what is there to tell a story. There are also other opportunities.

Hopefully, I am spared for many days, and that my family goes on to have a family. I look forward to the day when I can take my grandchildren to the prison and show them what, hopefully, at that stage will still be behind us. I will be able to show them the conditions in which prisoners lived and where some people chose to starve themselves to death for a greater cause.

I can show them where some prisoners decided to go on dirty protests and blanket protests and to live in their own excrement but then moved on and stayed to work under British rule. That says a lot about how we have moved on.

That is our troubled past, and those people brought violence to the streets at the time. However, I must put it on record that it is good to see that people have decided to choose the democratic process as the way forward for Northern Ireland. If that is all part of our history, we must tell that history. I support both our amendment and the SDLP amendment.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I am sure that some of the language and invective that we have heard to date will be of great comfort to the victims and survivors of our Troubles.

I will speak first of an experience that I had as a victims’ commissioner, when I was invited by the Strategic Investment Board to a meeting of interested bodies or stakeholders, if you prefer that word. The meeting was called in the headquarters of the Community Relations Council in Belfast. It was well attended, and SIB said that it wanted us to focus on three questions that afternoon. The first question was: “In principle, is it a good idea to have a conflict transformation centre?”. The second was: “If the answer to the above is yes, what should it look like and what should be in it?”. The third was: “Where should it be located?”. For the next three hours, we had a lively and, at times, heated debate not on the first or second question but solely on the third question.

Much like in football, where there is an ABU — Anyone But United — when it comes to a conflict transformation centre, there is an ABM: Anywhere But the Maze prison. For some, it is the scene of resistance; for others, it is the scene of the crime. Unless we resolve that, we will be making a mistake. Even though we may have agreed it in the past, it is not too late to change our minds.

On the principle of whether we should have a conflict transformation centre, the Ulster Unionists are clear: we are in favour of it. We have a victims’ charter, and, on question one, although we resist having a conflict transformation centre at the Maze, we are very open to having one. On the second question, about the centre’s content, our view is that it should reflect the lack of agreement about everything to do with our conflict.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Will the Member enlighten us about his opinion at that meeting as a victims’ commissioner representing all victims?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member will have a minute added to his time.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I went there to observe the debate and report back to my three colleagues. When the Victims’ Commission was established, although everyone who applied to be commissioner had applied to be the single commissioner, the resolution was to appoint four co-equals as commissioners. Therefore, in business terms, you effectively have an organisation with four co-equal chairs. No one has a casting vote, and no one’s opinion is more important than anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible to go to a public meeting, such as that stakeholder meeting run by the SIB, and offer an opinion without first reporting back and consulting your three colleagues. So, I offered no opinion.

As for the content of a conflict resolution centre, we need one central repository where, as Ms Ruane said, every view can be reflected. We do not agree on anything about our conflict. We do not agree on what happened. We do not agree on why it happened. We do not agree on the language that we use to describe it. We do not even agree on when it began: 40 years ago, 400 years ago, 900 years ago — take your pick.

It is critical that, if we have a conflict resolution centre, we have one central repository. If my colleagues to my left are so tuned into victims, they will know that, if you put it at the Maze, there will not be one central repository. Some groups will split off and do their own thing, and we will lose the value of having a central repository as a conflict resolution centre.

As well as content, we need to think about resource. If we are serious about building peace, we have to look at the fact that we have an uneven playing field. On one side of the fence there are some very good advocates, such as the Pat Finucane Centre, which is reported as doing very good work in helping victims and survivors, for example, in engagement with the Historical Enquiries Team. There is no equivalent on the other side of the fence. If we are to put resource into conflict resolution and peace-building, we must consider giving resource to the likes of Justice for Innocent Victims of the Troubles, bodies that are trying to build up that expertise in advocacy for people from the Protestant, unionist and loyalist community.

I cannot support the SDLP’s amendment. It states that the centre:

“must have due regard to the needs of victims and survivors”.

The biggest mistake you can make in looking at victims and survivors is to view them as a homogenous group who all think the same way and have the same needs. They do not. For many years now, I have been helping somebody — I believe he is a member of the Democratic Unionist Party — who worked in the Maze prison. He policed a riot for three days and took a stroke. He has not had a stroke since but has never been classified as a victim. The medical evidence at the time said that stress did not invoke a stroke. Medical opinion today is divided. Why is he not a victim?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I will close by saying that I support the development of the Maze site, the development of the former army bases and the development of a peace-building centre, but I do not support its establishment at the Maze.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle, Beidh mé ag labhairt ar son an dá leasú agus in éadan an rúin. I will speak in favour of both amendments and against the motion.

It has already been pointed out — to date, I have not heard the Ulster Unionist Party explain why it has changed its opinion on the siting of a transformation centre at the Long Kesh site — that the first panel set up to examine how the site should be used was chaired by David Campbell. Edwin Poots has already said that part of signing off on that particular document was that the four parties represented all had to give their blessing at that time. David Campbell was the chair, and he signed off on it. It was a very clear proposal that there would be a conflict transformation centre at the Long Kesh site. Whatever changed your minds — Mike Nesbitt gave some articulation of that in his presentation — I have not heard anything consistent from the Ulster Unionists as to why they changed their minds.

The only thing that has changed in the intervening years is that the balance of power has shifted within unionism. In my opinion, this is a debate that the Ulster Unionist Party has developed as a result of that shift in balance. I say that because the panel that replaced the consultation panel was the development group. One of the criticisms made of the first panel was that the Alliance Party was not represented, but it was given a place on that development group, which was chaired by Edwin Poots. The Ulster Unionist Party refused, within months of the panel producing its first report, to put a person on that development group and did so right throughout its history. Let us have a bit of honesty and integrity when you are talking about why you changed your mind.

It is also interesting — I say this to everybody who has spoken in the debate — to hear other people telling republicans what they want on that site. They always define it in simple, straightforward terms. I declare an interest as a former political prisoner who served time in Long Kesh and as the chair of Coiste, which is the representation body for political ex-prisoners. We made a presentation to David Campbell’s committee. It is there on the record for people to read. If people go away and read it, then come back with some of the comments that have been made here this morning about what republicans want to see on that site and that corresponds to what they have said here today, I will stand here and make an apology on behalf of republicans. However, I will not be making any apology, because we stated very clearly that what we wanted on the site was recognition of its political and historical significance.

Caitríona Ruane said that history is about everyone telling their story: the people who were in the prison; the people who staffed it; the British soldiers on the watchtowers; and the people who visited the prison, such as the Quakers. All those representative groups should be invited to tell their story. Indeed, victims of the conflict in the North should also be allowed to tell their story. That is what republicans want — nothing more, nothing less. That is what Members should address today instead of pretending that republicans want something else when it is not there to be seen or examined. That is very important.

What else do we want for the site? From the beginning, we have always said that the site should be developed to its maximum potential. I was a member of the development group and read some of the papers from the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Almost every developer or observer who has gone to that site said that it would be foolish to develop it without some recognition of its political and historical significance. There is no controversy about the Crumlin Road prison, Portlaoise prison, Kilmainham jail, Armagh prison or Downpatrick prison. There is a focus, sometimes falsely created, particularly by unionists, on the Long Kesh site. The Long Kesh site existed; it has a history and a political significance.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

In my opinion, the only way to develop the site properly is to recognise that political and historical significance.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

We have had a wide-ranging debate, and, indeed, some strange things have been said. I was particularly taken by Mike Nesbitt’s attack on the victims’ sector in the unionist community. He said that that none was of any worth compared with the Pat Finucane Centre. When the Member reflects on what he said, having read Hansard, he may well have cause to regret it. Furthermore, the Member does not see the inherent contradiction in saying initially that what unites victims and survivors is the belief that the Maze is the wrong place, but later, when dealing with the SDLP amendment, saying that there is no particular view among victims and survivors and they should not be lumped together. For someone who is, supposedly, the great defender of victims to reject an amendment that talks about having due regard for the needs of victims and survivors seems to be rank hypocrisy, but we have seen that all too frequently from the Ulster Unionist Party in this debate. I will come to that in a moment.

Everyone agrees that work needs to be done on the site. We are in the deepest recession for many years, and the overall scheme for the development of the Maze needs to move ahead. It can provide employment and finance for all our people, which is something to be welcomed and embraced. Previous false starts were mentioned, the obvious one being the national stadium. However, I want to make it clear that I have always had concerns about that, although less about its location and more about whether we could marry all three sports in one stadium. Ultimately, it fell because the economic case did not stack up, and the decision was made on economic grounds. Nevertheless, we put that behind us, and, on the sporting side, we support stadiums and look to move the Maze situation forward.

I will now come to the hub of the motion and the Ulster Unionist Party’s concerns. At that party’s conference, David Campbell, who is not merely a minor member of that party but its chairman, said that we should remember the role of the Ulster Unionist Party, particularly during the peace process. He said that the party had not been given credit for all that it had done. I agree with David Campbell: let us remember its role. Let us specifically remember the role of Mr Campbell, who chaired the Maze consultation panel before Mr Poots, and, indeed, was intimately involved in the matter. It beggars belief that the Ulster Unionists would raise concerns at this stage, when their fingerprints are all over the proposal. If the remarks of Mr Campbell, who is a former Member for Lagan Valley, had been made by someone who would be regarded as a bit more of a loose cannon, such as that party’s current Member for Lagan Valley, one could understand the Ulster Unionist Party trying to distance itself from those remarks. However, the reality is that those remarks were made by its current chairman.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Nesbitt is a johnny-come-lately to the Ulster Unionist Party. He had no position a number of years ago, and, before that, he recognised that the Ulster Unionist Party supported the proposal. However, he now says that that was wrong. Does the Member see the obvious conflict between the position of the party chairman and that of one of its new boys in the Assembly?

Indeed, there has been abuse of victims where this issue is concerned. The proposal is not about setting up something for prisoners to celebrate; it is about setting up something to fight the fight for peace in the future and to demonstrate what was wrong with Northern Ireland society. It is not about demonstrating that violence was good.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Once again, I remind Members about long interventions.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I could not agree more with the Member. Indeed, if there is to be conflict resolution, perhaps it should start between Mr Nesbitt and Mr Campbell. That may be the most appropriate use of it.

We agree with the SDLP amendment, which effectively subsumes ours. Victims and survivors should be put at the heart of the proposal. In many ways, the Maze is the ideal place for a proposal such as this. We will ensure that there is nothing that glorifies terrorism. Additionally, we need something that reminds us of the bad days and of the evil that people should be warned not to go back to. It is therefore important that there is something that meets that need.

The synthetic concern that the Ulster Unionist Party has produced at this stage does not put victims and survivors at the heart of the proposal. If it is to show proper commitment to victims and survivors, let it join us in the Lobbies supporting the SDLP amendment. Let us speak with one voice in protecting victims and survivors, rather than, like the Ulster Unionist Party, showing false concern about proposals of which it is the genesis. Let us remember the greatest contribution that the Ulster Unionist Party made to the Maze: that was in 1998, when it threw open the prison gates and —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member should draw his remarks to a close.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

— let out terrorist prisoners. We will not take lectures from the party to my right on anything that has happened at the Maze.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

A few weeks ago in the ‘News Letter’ there was a front-page report of a speech that the First Minister made in, I think, Liverpool. The headline was something like: “We can’t push Sinn Féin too far”.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that that matter is with my legal team because of the inaccuracy of the headline, so it should not be repeated.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I remind the whole House, especially the Member who has the Floor, to be very mindful of what is being said.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Obviously, that is news to me. I take cognisance of it.

The issue that I start with is that the huge transformation that we have seen in the DUP position is, of course, driven by a philosophy that says, “We must keep Sinn Féin happy if we are to keep our jobs”. A few years ago, the stadium proposition was utterly rejected because it was tainted by the ugly buildings that made up the prison at the Maze and by the fear that they would become a shrine that would brand and taint the entire proposition. The stadium was rejected by many on that basis. Today, however, we have reached the point where not only can the DUP accept the buildings remaining —

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

You accepted them.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I never did.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It accepts that the buildings can not only remain but be an integral part of the proposition.

If branding and blighting was an issue for the stadium, how much more is it, inevitably, an issue for the conflict resolution centre? If we need a conflict resolution centre, why do we need to put it somewhere where it will be blighted and branded? The answer, of course, is that Sinn Féin will not support it anywhere else. That is why, in the rolling over to the Sinn Féin demand, we have the scenario that it will be agreed that it will be at the Maze. Therefore, it will incorporate the very buildings that will be the shrine and which caused the deputy leader of the DUP to rightly say, “However it is dressed up,” — my oh my, it has been well dressed up today — “whatever spin is deployed,” — the spin that has been deployed today has been dizzying —

“the preservation of a section of the H-Blocks — including the hospital wing — would become a shrine to the terrorists who committed suicide in the Maze in the 1980s. That would be obnoxious to the vast majority of people and is something unionist people cannot accept.”

Nigel Dodds was right then, and he is right now. The Members whose deputy leader he is must, inevitably, be saying that he is wrong. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I agreed with him entirely when he said that. Was Nigel Dodds wrong? Is he wrong, or was he right? Members on the DUP Benches know in their heart that he was right. Yet, as in so much, for the sake of accepting what Sinn Féin demands, they are prepared to roll over on the issue and to blight and brand a worthwhile project of development at the Maze with this, because they are anticipating the utterly unnecessary retention of the buildings. Three DUP Environment Ministers could have delisted those buildings, had them demolished and neutralised the site. Instead, they kept it contaminated, and keeping it contaminated brands the proposition for a conflict resolution centre and destroys the worth that is in that proposition. If there is a need for one, why does it have to be at the Maze?

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Does the Member agree that, given that we have come out of a period of deep violence and conflict, there is a need for some sort of mechanism in our society and some sort of site that can bring about a lasting peace and build confidence and reconciliation in our community? I know that the Member objects to the site at Maze/Long Kesh, but does he accept the concept?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member will have an extra minute.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you. I am open to persuasion on the concept of a conflict resolution centre, if that is what it genuinely is and not some mechanism for the rewriting of history. That is why I ask this question: why brand it, why blight it and why damn it by associating it with something that will never deliver the neutrality and the objectivity —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— that, otherwise, should and would be required? I support the motion and reject the amendments.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Given that I speak following the remarks of the Member for North Antrim, I will comment on some of his remarks before I come to the substance of the motion.

As I look across the Chamber, the picture that comes into my mind is that of a certain Japanese man. That is not a racist comment, nor is it any reference to the appearance of the Member for North Antrim. I think his name was Hiroo Onoda. He was sent to a Philippine island during the last war to carry out certain acts to disrupt the allies. He stayed in the jungle even after the war was over. Even though they went round the island with loudspeakers to tell him that the war was over, he would not believe it. Even though they dropped leaflets on him, he would not believe it. Twenty-nine years after the war was over, he came out. It seems to me that the Member for North Antrim still has not come to terms with the fact that we have left behind the era in which he seems to be content to mire himself. We are in a new era, trying to move forward.

The Member tries to style himself as the official opposition in the Assembly. He is not an opposition at all in this Assembly; he is the opposition to this Assembly. That is a distinct difference. He is opposed to these structures. He wants to bring them down. He takes on the role of wrecker in this Assembly, and we would be very foolish if we were to pay too much heed to his words or tactics.

The motion is constructed in three parts, as the Member for Lagan Valley suggested. I readily join its proposer in acknowledging the potential social and economic benefits that the development of former military sites across Northern Ireland can bring. More than that, the Executive are actively involved in extracting the full potential from each of those sites. Nowhere is that potential greater than at the Maze site. It is roughly twice the size of the Titanic Quarter, and its strategic location on a number of arterial routes makes the M/LK site a potential catalyst for economic recovery in Northern Ireland. We are determined to ensure that we maximise the potential of that significant site. It not only provides opportunities to bring local social and economic regeneration but can create something of regional and, I believe, national significance. Out of the prison site that in the past was a manifestation of individual, organisational and even societal failure, we want to achieve something new that demonstrates our desire to build a brighter, better and shared future for all.

Nor do I have any resistance to the part of the motion that seeks to see the site developed in a manner that is sensitive to the feelings of victims. The centre will build on the evolving cohesion, sharing and integration policy agenda and contribute to dealing with the legacy of the past, not least in supporting the victims and survivors who suffered during the years of conflict. Its international dimension will help to embed our region more deeply in worldwide peace-building networks. What better outward symbol could there be of our society’s transition to stability and peace? We fully recognise the long-term impact of violence. Victims and survivors are individuals, and, as the Member for Strangford indicated, no single approach will suit them all. I can, however, categorically assure Members that every effort will be made to ensure that the functions and remit of the centre will not be offensive to those who have suffered.

It is the third element of the Ulster Unionist Party motion, which speaks of their concern about the proposal to build this centre at the Maze site, that I find not only interesting but, perhaps, bemusing. I am at a loss to understand the rationale and intention of the Ulster Unionist Party at expressing such concerns, unless, of course, they are repenting. My difficulty in understanding their so-called concern and, indeed, the reference on Saturday at the Ulster Unionist Party conference by the leader to a terrorist shrine at the Maze comes from the fact that the proposal that concerns them is their own proposal. It was not a DUP First Minister and Sinn Féin deputy First Minister who advanced the proposal for a peace-building and conflict resolution centre: we inherited it. The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and then First Minister and an SDLP deputy First Minister nominated the chairman and vice-chairman of the panel that brought forward the proposal. The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and then First Minister agreed to the outcome of the panel’s report and endorsed it.

It might be worthwhile to look at some elements of the Ulster Unionist Party-led report. It says:

“The ICCT will include the World War 2 structures; one H block; the prison hospital; the administration building and emergency control room; a prison chapel; a section of the prison perimeter wall around Maze cellular; a watchtower; and a cage from Maze compound.”

It was the Ulster Unionist Party-led panel that recommended that the Maze be the site. It was the Ulster Unionist Party-led panel that recommended that there should be an international conflict transformation centre at the Maze. It was the Ulster Unionist Party-led panel that suggested that the listed buildings should be part of that overall centre.

The report goes further:

“the work of the International Centre could be facilitated positively by being located beside the preserved buildings. Since part of the purpose of the Centre would be to acknowledge and learn from the past whilst looking forward to and building for the future, it would be fitting to do so in a setting which played a major role in the conflict.”

It continues:

“The Panel recommend that the government should protect the structures associated with the International Centre and provide funding to ensure the buildings do not fall into decay … We believe these structures should be given statutory protection and recommend that the Government concludes the formal process of listing as soon as possible.”

The very listing of the structures at the Maze comes from the Ulster Unionist Party-led panel. This is not the proposal of the Democratic Unionist Party or, indeed, of Sinn Féin; it is the baby of the Ulster Unionist Party that it is now trying to drown it and distance itself from it.

My colleagues from Lagan Valley made exceptional speeches and indicated their support. Indeed, I note that the brief history outlined by one Member — he only had time to do it briefly — is such that I gauge that most people in our society would be happy to go along to such a facility to see the history of the army and the prison officers who worked in the Maze. There will be many levels of interest in that site, and I am absolutely determined that there will be no terrorist shrine in the Maze. If it was ever the proposal of the Ulster Unionist Party to have a terrorist shrine — it was that party’s proposal — it will be stopped when it comes to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. That is not just my point of view: when questioned during First Minister and deputy First Minister’s Question Time and when pressed time and time again by Members from the Ulster Unionist Party, the deputy First Minister has repeated over and over again that he has no intention of allowing the site to become a shrine for terrorism.

The leader of Ulster Unionist Party said at his party conference on Saturday:

“We didn’t bring forward proposals for a terrorist shrine at the former Maze prison site.”

If he considers it to be a terrorist shrine, he has to accept that his party brought forward those proposals. It ill becomes him now to arrive in the Chamber and attempt to milk whatever latent form of opposition there might be to a conflict resolution centre at the Maze to see if he can get on that bandwagon. There are few bandwagons left for him to get on.

The Ulster Unionist Party does not come to this debate today with clean hands. The proposals have been approved by the leadership of that party and brought forward by the present chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party, who, incidentally, was sitting on the platform while the Ulster Unionist Party leader attacked him for having brought forward proposals in the meantime. I happen to agree with the Member for North Down: we should allow the Ulster Unionist Party to go down there for a free week when the facility is open so that they can try to resolve the conflict that there clearly is within their party.

The Member indicated that it was not the most appropriate site, but the report clearly believes that it is. That report was brought forward by his colleague, his friend, his chairman, Mr David Campbell. He then spoke about the secrecy of the proposal: there is nothing secret about the proposal. The very fact that we are debating it today should indicate that it is far from secret. He mentioned the application. Of course, OFMDFM does not want to jeopardise its application, but we will be happy to sit down and go over the application with him and his deputy chairman, if he wants to bring him along to such a meeting. As far as EU funding is concerned, this is not the pot of money that community groups seek funding from; it is the institutional and structural part of funding. I think that it is measure 2.2 that we are seeking funding from.

The initial overall development focuses on two anchor projects: the proposed peace-building and conflict resolution centre and the anticipated proposal for the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society to create a centre of rural excellence at the site. We hope that those two projects will be a catalyst for attracting further investment and thousands of jobs throughout Northern Ireland. Socio-economic conditions, including the potential employment opportunities that will arise, have been at the heart of all of the options, analysis and testing undertaken thus far.

I welcome this opportunity to reinforce our intention that the centre that we are building will be a world-class centre of excellence dedicated to promoting and strengthening peace-building processes and non-violent conflict resolution and prevention, both here in Northern Ireland and around the globe. We want to create a world-leading facility that will provide opportunities for academic research, conferences, educational activity and events examining conflict prevention, resolution and social cohesion issues.

The centre will build on Northern Ireland’s experience, helping to contribute positively to creating a more stable and peaceful world. There is potential for the venue to accommodate temporary and permanent exhibitions from around the world. The benefits of the peace-building and conflict resolution centre are substantial, and, placed in tandem with our proposals for the potential relocation of the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society at Maze/Long Kesh, we believe that we are providing the impetus required to attract further investment to the site. Invest Northern Ireland has already recognised that the work of the centre will enhance our regional and international reputation and that this will encourage external investment. The potential for this is significant and could result in the creation of thousands of jobs.

The deputy First Minister and I will retain accountability for the role and functions of the centre, and we are accountable to the House, thereby ensuring that it is used solely for the purposes intended. We believe that, through partnership, the centre will draw together and build on the work of existing local and regional organisations. The outcome of this collective approach will be far more challenging and delivery-focused as a result. I am in no doubt that this will lead to the positive resolution of difficult issues experienced by many victims and survivors of conflict. Let Members stop trying to stir up anxiety and disquiet about this important, beneficial scheme, and put our collective weight behind what can be a truly significant regional development.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business for Members when we return will be Question Time.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.39 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) —

Education

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Question 10 has been withdrawn and requires a written answer.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Education what capital projects his Department has planned for South Antrim over the next three years. (AQO 632/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. At this point, I am not in a position to detail what new capital projects are planned in South Antrim or any other area. I have made it clear that we need to move to a more strategic approach to planning, and I have commissioned the education and library boards (ELB), working in close conjunction with the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and other sectors, to undertake that work. I have also indicated that no school capital building project will be looked at in isolation. Projects will be looked at within the context of the wider area plan. Until that work is complete, I cannot comment on individual schools or on specific areas.

The focus of area planning will be to determine the future needs of an area across all sectors and then to compare what is needed with what already exists in order to identify gaps and over-provision. Once the need is determined, the school managing authorities will consider how best to meet that need. The emphasis must be on a network of sustainable schools and maximising the use of the existing estate. Future capital investment will be targeted at supporting area plans.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. However, I have major concerns about a number of areas, one being Parkhall Integrated College in Antrim, which has already had some rationalisation in the secondary-school sector. From a health and safety point of view, the building is probably substandard, with major leaks. This time last year, there was the necessity for movement on that, and the college indicated that it was ready to go to build in October 2010. Unfortunately, that is all in the bye. Another concern is Ballyclare Primary School, which is in need of major health and safety upgrades to make it last. I know that it is on a scheme for replacement in the longer term, but some minor improvement is required to make it abide by current health and safety requirements.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I understand fine well MLAs raising issues about schools in their constituencies. However, as Minister, I have a responsibility to ensure that we achieve a sustainable schools estate and that we use the very limited public resources available to us in the most effective and efficient way. I believe that setting out the area planning proposal is the best way forward. We can be assured that when the area plans come back, the proposals in them will meet the needs of education in any constituency for at least a generation.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I remind Members to keep their questions brief.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I congratulate Paul. I thought that that was an excellent performance.

The Minister made two references to the area planning process, and I assume that that type of best practice should be rolled out across every constituency. Will he tell us when he expects this area planning process to be completed?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I would like to see the area plans back with me by March 2012. If, for any reason, the boards and CCMS, working in conjunction with the other sectors, have their area plans completed beforehand, I am more than willing to take receipt of them. However, the target date for completion is March 2012.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I would like to think that the clear health and safety issues that the Member opposite referred to will be looked at by the people responsible for those schools.

Is the Minister exploring other potential sources of funding for capital projects in the education sector?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It was remiss of me not to answer Mr Girvan’s question, but he asked so many questions.

The onus is on the managing authority of a school to investigate any health and safety concerns and, where possible, to take remedial action. In the October monitoring round, we were successful in securing a further £10 million towards maintenance costs for schools, and that is very welcome. However, there are significant maintenance costs across our schools estate. Am I looking for alternative sources of funding? Yes, and I am open to suggestions for funding for capital builds moving forward. I think that we have to think outside the box in the current financial climate, and if there are alternative funding sources or funding sources that would complement existing departmental funds, I am willing to take a look at them.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

2. asked the Minister of Education if he has identified any immediate financial savings which could be effected within the next year by putting home-to-school transport services out to competitive tender. (AQO 633/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have committed the education and library boards to delivering £5 million of savings in the current financial year. The performance and efficiency delivery unit (PEDU) has been commissioned to review efficiency in home-to-school transport services, and it will report with recommendations very soon. That report will identify how to generate further savings going forward.

The context for that report, however, is that the ELBs already put many of their home-to-school transport bus and taxi contracts out to competitive tender to secure cost-effective services that meet the safety standards for school transport. More children are transported by services that are provided under contract to ELBs than are transported by the boards. Approximately 50,000 of the 90,000 children who receive transport assistance do so in the form of a bus pass for appropriate Translink services.

Better competitive tendering, not competitive tendering per se, is the issue. The PEDU report has looked into such occurrences in accordance with its terms of reference. In addition, the boards could improve the efficiency of the services that they provide. The £5 million savings target challenges them on that. The PEDU report will also do so, and, again, that is in accordance with its terms of reference.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, surely your Department could save money on school transport by involving the private sector and by bundling contracts for school transport across the Province.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We are open to any area where we can provide savings, as long as those savings deliver an effective and efficient service to the people whom we are here to serve. By and large, the boards go out to competitive tendering. There are a number of cases where boards provide their own buses. That occurs in circumstances, particularly in rural communities, where Translink does not have regular services. In such circumstances, the boards provide a bus. In circumstances where children have a statemented need, with travel by taxi considered to be the best form of transport, a taxi will be provided. Taxis are also used where there is a small cohort of children and bus provision would not be viable. However, by and large, Translink is the main provider, and a number of private providers complement that.

I await the final publication of the PEDU report. I am expecting the draft, which I will publish, to be in my Department within the next number of weeks. No doubt, it will make wide-ranging recommendations, and the Department will be willing to work its way through those as long as they meet the needs of the schools and our school transport service.

During a recent debate in the Chamber, which, I think, the Member’s party sponsored, I agreed to carry out a fundamental review of school transport services.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister said that Translink is the main provider of such transport but that the private sector offers services in addition to that. If, through the PEDU route, the Department ends up considering further private sector transportation arrangements, how thorough will the checks be to ensure that the bona fide, legitimate operators are able to compete on a contractual basis with those against whom there have been past alleged misdemeanours that, despite investigations by the Department, do not appear to have been uncovered?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not wish to pre-empt the PEDU report and its recommendations. Your second comment related to an open and transparent system for tendering. That will certainly be the case. I expect that to be the case, and I have no doubt that our boards carry out the tendering process in that manner at this time.

There are a number of measures that boards can, and do, take against transport providers that do not fully follow contracts or the criteria that are stipulated for them. In the cases of minor incidents, providers can be warned that further action will be taken if it happens again. In the most extreme cases, such as a provider not ensuring the health and safety of the young people whom it is transporting, the contract can be taken from the provider and they can be removed from the tendering list. Therefore, sanctions are available, and they have been used in a number of incidences.

If the Member has any specific examples that he wishes to forward to me, I will be happy to ask my officials to investigate them further.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. I was going to ask when he expected PEDU to publish its findings, but I think he covered that in his response to Mr Cree’s question.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of Education what plans he has to introduce a strategic framework to remove the barriers to education for people from ethnic minorities. (AQO 634/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My officials participate in the racial equality panel and racial equality forum, which are working towards a new racial equality strategy through a partnership process with other Departments, minority ethnic groups and the wider community. They will provide a framework to tackle racial inequalities and open up opportunity to all.

My Department will also continue to reflect the needs of ethnic minorities in a range of policies and programmes including ‘Every School a Good School – Supporting Newcomer Pupils’. The Department is also considering the recommendations of the NICEM (Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities) report on promoting racial equality in post-primary schools.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. What is the Minister’s assessment of the pastoral care afforded to children from ethnic minorities? Quite often, children are the only interpreters between teachers and staff, and I wonder what the Minister’s assessment is of that level of pastoral care and support in our education system.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We are lucky to have a very high level of pastoral care across our schools. That comes down to the work of individual schools, the management teams in those schools and the enthusiasm of those involved in the pastoral care schemes.

I was at the launch of the NICEM report, and, having listened to the views expressed there, I am of the view that there are lessons to be learned about issues of racial equality. I am considering the NICEM report on the experiences of ethnic minorities in our schools, and I will report back on that in due course. However, in general, I feel that our schools have a very good pastoral care system, which is driven by the schools, the teachers and the staff.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the passage of the Armed Forces Bill through Parliament last week, which guarantees the removal of any barriers to education for service families throughout the United Kingdom?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I fail to see the relevance to the original question.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

You are the Minister; you should see it.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Order, please.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am sure that my supplementary question will be relevant.

Minister, I welcome the fact that you are looking at NICEM’s report and the racial equality strategy. However, will you consider a more holistic approach, particularly towards Roma families? Those families have a very restricted immigration status and no right to seek employment or any welfare entitlement, yet there is a statutory entitlement on them to send their children to school. When they do not have —

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Question, please.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I have already asked a question — [Laughter.] Those families do not receive assistance for school uniforms, transport or school meals.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Following the rather disturbing incidents in Belfast last year, or perhaps the year before, in which the Roma community came under attack, my predecessor, Caitríona Ruane, introduced support for that community. Indeed, from a very limited budget, she made substantial amounts of money available to the Belfast Education and Library Board, which covers the area where the vast majority of our Roma population appear to live. A total of £2,000 per child is available to support Roma children through our education system.

You are quite correct that the Roma immigration status causes barriers and difficulties. However, I believe that my predecessor acted appropriately at that time. That support network still exists, and I hope to be able to continue it into the future.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

4. asked the Minister of Education to explain the rationale behind the decision to rescind circular 1979/10 ‘The Greater Involvement of Young People in Northern Ireland’. (AQO 635/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Circular 1979/10, which is actually entitled ‘Greater Involvement of Young People in the Youth Service’, was issued in February 1979 to create a system for participation in the Youth Service.

In advance of the new policy on youth, officials reviewed the relevance of the circular and determined that it did not reflect the policy and legislative changes in youth work in the intervening 32 years; that it did not reflect the emergence and further development of a youth work curriculum in the past 32 years; and that it did not reflect the methods through which young people might choose to participate now. Officials also found that the circular was not consistent with the funding schemes developed for youth work or with the need for fairness, openness and transparency in the awarding of grants; that it pre-dated the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and was not rights-based; and that it has become obsolete, and, therefore, does not direct the participation of young people in the Youth Service today.

I want to ensure that the service delivery supports for young people are efficient, effective and fit for the 21st century. It is not defensible to continue with outdated structural and funding arrangements that result in an organisation receiving over £1,000 per annum without competition. A review of the circular was overdue. Other organisations in the youth network must apply for scarce resources and demonstrate efficiency, effectiveness and value for money. It would be inequitable to allow one organisation to remain outside published funding schemes.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Education Minister for his response. The circular provided for a regional youth-led body, currently the Northern Ireland Youth Forum, to facilitate youth participation in policy development at community and regional levels, with direct engagement with the Minister and the Department. Will any new policy maintain that level of youth participation in policy development?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Youth Forum continues to have direct involvement in youth policy. Indeed, it continues to represent young people in various Department of Education fora, such as the Youth Service Liaison Forum and the Priorities for Youth stakeholder group. I am reviewing youth provision. I want to ensure that the limited funds that we have are properly used. I want to ensure that youth work is connected very closely to — indeed, is one with — education provision and that it meets the needs of our curriculum and delivers a modern education service. As part of that, I will continue to look at the role of the Youth Forum. However, I believe that the circular was outdated, as I said. I have given several reasons for that. We can continue to debate the outdated circular and miss the opportunity to move forward, but I would much prefer to debate the future with the Youth Forum and other youth providers than debate an outdated circular.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Does the Minister share my concern that officials withdrew the circular without consulting adequately with the stakeholder community? Does he not accept that, in the light of his review of youth services, it would have been better to await the outcome of that review before withdrawing any circular without consultation?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The removal of the circular was an administrative matter that did not require public consultation. As an elected representative and as Minister, I signed off on the agreement to remove the circular. I believed that that was the right decision then, and I still believe that it is the right decision. When something is so glaringly out of date, you do not require a review to make a decision.

Let me repeat some of the difficulties with the circular. It did not reflect the methods by which young people may choose to participate now, and it was not consistent with the funding scheme developed for youth work or the need for fairness, openness and transparency in the awarding of grants. I am sure that the Member will agree with me — this is a matter of major concern — that it predated the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and was not rights-based.

We can argue about what the circular did or did not provide, but I would much prefer to start the engagement on moving forward and on ensuring that the Youth Service is modern, efficient and effective.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I appreciate that the Minister has said that he is holding a review. Can he outline what will be put in as an alternative? The circular seems to have been withdrawn without an alternative in place. In that respect, I see its withdrawal as premature.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Our youth engage with decision-makers in many ways. We have youth councils. We have a number of examples of school councils. We have direct engagement through Assembly Members and councillors. We have numerous engagements. Access to me and my Department continues. The Youth Forum sits on a number of decision-making bodies. My concern — I believe that it is correct — is that the circular was outdated, given changes in legislation and in the policy direction of the Department over almost three decades. The core of the circular and concerns about it seems to be that the Youth Forum had access to automatic funding. In a time of restricted budgets, we pose difficult questions and have to make difficult decisions about the future provision of education and youth services. That means that no group, and I mean no group, should have automatic entitlement to funding. Groups should be able to present an effective business case and business plan on each occasion to ensure that their programme of work meets the needs of the young people whom they are there to serve.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister assure us that the withdrawal of the circular will not diminish the Youth Forum’s ability to continue its valuable work?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

No, it will not. As I stated, the Youth Forum is still engaged in stakeholder groups. It is still engaged in forums, such as the Youth Service Liaison Forum and the Priorities for Youth stakeholder group. Therefore, it remains an active organisation. How active it will be in the future is a matter for the Youth Forum and will depend on the business plans or programmes of work that it brings to funders. I hope that the Youth Forum continues to be an effective and efficient voice for young people, but that is a matter solely for itself.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

5. asked the Minister of Education for his assessment of the proposed closure of Redburn Primary School, Holywood. (AQO 636/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The South Eastern Education and Library Board is assessing the future status of the school as part of its routine process of reviewing the controlled estate. Any significant change to the school estate, such as closure or amalgamation, requires the publication of a statutory development proposal to support that intent. In conjunction with the board of governors of individual schools, the school managing authority brings development proposals for school closures to the Department. In the case of Redburn Primary School, the authority is the South Eastern Education and Library Board. There is, however, no development proposal with my Department for the closure of Redburn Primary School. Ultimately, I decide on development proposals, having considered the factors involved and comments received. On that basis, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on any possible future decision on Redburn Primary School.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Will the Minister outline what the possible impacts will be on the school provision for Holywood if the proposed closure goes ahead? In particular, what will be the impact on the army children who attend the school? In light of his announcement of the review of the school estate, does he not feel that it is rather premature and foolish of the commissioners to go ahead with the consultation on the closure?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I said in my original answer, I will not speculate on individual schools, particularly because the development proposal is a legal framework. As the adjudicator in that legal framework, it would be wrong of me to speculate on a decision before considering all the information that is to be placed in front of me. I have not called a pause or stop to any of the education boards moving forward and dealing with development proposals; in fact, I have encouraged boards to speed up that process.

When boards identify schools that are suffering stress or facing major challenges, it is quite right and proper that they continue with the processes outlined in legislation to move those cases forward. I will assess any development proposal that reaches my desk on the basis of the information contained therein. During the two months in which a development proposal is with my Department, I am open to receiving delegations and discussing the matter with elected representatives or representatives of the school. That is when I meet and discuss development proposals in detail and make a decision based on all the information before me.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister continue to make decisions on new applications that are with him for new nursery schools, including for Waringstown in our constituency, or have they been frozen?

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I leave it up to the Minister whether he wishes to answer.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Again, I will not comment on the individual development proposal, because it has not reached my desk. However, the Department of Education faces significant financial pressures, particularly on its front line schools’ budget. Every time that I approve a development proposal for a statutory nursery school, it creates extra pressure on the front line schools’ budget programme. I am examining the preschool review, which was commissioned before the summer, and is, in my opinion, a good piece of work. It has brought forward a number of proposals on the future of development proposals for turning voluntary and community schools into statutory schools. I will examine those proposals and report back to the Assembly in due course. As I understand it, I am legally bound to make a decision on any development proposal that is currently in the system. I will base my decisions on the merits of each case.

I have to say to the Assembly that the difficulties facing the education budget are severe. Every time that I turn a community and voluntary nursery into a statutory nursery, I am only adding pressure to front line school budgets. Any decision on development proposals has to be taken in the round.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that the ongoing speculation about the future of a number of schools, which we have heard about in the Chamber and the media, that is taking place in advance of development proposals being submitted not only is unhelpful but can damage schools?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes. Speculating on the future of individual schools, be it in the media or in this Chamber, is unhelpful and only heightens concern in communities. I would much prefer to see an informed debate about each school. I think that Members have a duty to inform themselves of the detail of each school. That information is available to them from a wide range of sources and, indeed, through this body. Members can submit questions for written or oral answer. I much prefer them in written form, because I do not think that debating the future of individual schools on the Floor of the Chamber does the schools concerned any good.

I have to say this: at the core of all schools are the pupils. As I have said in the Chamber before, we should not be fixated on buildings but on the young people who are supposed to be being educated in them. That is my core responsibility and that of this debating Chamber.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

6. asked the Minister of Education how he proposes to deal with area planning for schools which are on the borders of education and library board areas and which draw pupils from across board boundaries. (AQO 637/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The focus of area planning will be to determine the future needs of an area across all sectors and then to compare what is needed with what already exists to identify gaps and over-provision. Where boundaries are drawn for planning purposes there will be schools close to boundaries, and they will attract pupils from adjoining areas. Area plans must recognise that reality and plan for the number of pupils who attend schools in the area, whether or not they live in that area. Account must be taken of schools that are situated close to area boundaries, so that the overall number of places planned for matches the projected need and that pupils are not counted twice or omitted from consideration altogether.

In taking forward area planning, education and library boards, working in close conjunction with CCMS and the other sectors, will be required to demonstrate clearly that they have taken account of cross-boundary movement of pupils when they are developing area plans.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Education Minister for his answer. I know that area planning is quite high on his agenda. I was just wondering whether he is planning to do that on all-Northern Ireland basis, as opposed to carrying it out in each education and library board area and having the CCMS as a separate unit. However, maybe he is afraid to take on the CCMS on this proposal.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not think it is a case of my having to take on any of our managing authorities. Our managing authorities are, in some ways, ahead of the game. During the discussion around the previous question, we heard about how education boards are moving forward with difficult but, in my view, necessary decisions. It is not a case of my having to take on CCMS or the boards. However, if I have to take them on, I will, because I believe that the programme of work that I have set out is the right way forward.

Boards plan their provision almost according to council areas. I believe and am, indeed, confident that boards can plan across boundaries in the North. There is an argument for all-Ireland or cross-border planning for some of our schools estate. However, that will take a wee bit longer, because we need further information on how we would do it. I am confident that the education and library boards and CCMS can work not only together but across boundaries.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Time is up for questions to the Minister of Education. We must move on.

Finance and Personnel

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Questions 1 and 7 have been withdrawn, and written responses are required.

Questions 3 and 11 have been transferred.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what impact the revaluation of business premises will have on the proposal to increase rates on premises with a rateable value of over £500,000. (AQO 648/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member will recall that I postponed the business rates revaluation that was due to take place in 2011-12. The first reason for doing so was because volatility in the property market at that time caused problems in getting stability for the rate base. Therefore, the revaluation has been put off until 2015, when we hope that balance and equity will be restored to the rates system.

The proposals that I am considering for higher-value shops to fund the enlargement of the small business rates relief scheme are a temporary rebalancing measure because there has not been a revaluation since 2002. In the meantime, there has been a change in rental patterns, etc, which would have advantaged one sector over the other. When the revaluation job is done, that balance will, of course, have been restored. The additional levy that we propose under the small business rates relief will then be dropped.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his response. He will have noticed, in the media, comments by Tesco about its future investment plans. Does he believe that Tesco’s assessment is accurate?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First of all, Tesco’s response to this has been — I choose my words quite deliberately — absolutely pathetic. Here is a major company that is used to bullying its way around. However, it is not going to use bully-boy tactics on something that the Assembly has looked at, that has been proposed in the Budget and is a sensible way forward. Anyone who tells me that a £100 million investment project for which Tesco will look for a return over the next 20 to 25 years will be derailed by a temporary tax that relates to four stores and amounts to £840,000, at the most, spread over the 20- or 25-year term of that £100 million investment project, and that that kind of investment will be endangered, either has not done their sums very well or must think that we are all a bunch of idiots. That is equivalent to a 0·042% return over the 20-year period.

Now, if Tesco’s investment in Northern Ireland is that perilous and precarious, I do not think that it is a wise investment decision and it should, probably, never have been made in the first place. For that reason, I believe that it is bluffing and bullying. It will not get away with that.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. In particular, I note that rates are one vital way to help businesses in the future. Can the Minister tell the House how many people responded to the business rates relief scheme consultation and what some of the main issues were?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not have the exact numbers, but I think that there were around 80 responses to the consultation. I suppose that they were along fairly predictable lines. The people who are involved in small businesses in town centres welcomed the proposal and indicated that it would be one way to reduce their overheads. Those who are going to pay the 20% additional levy obviously said that it was going to cause them difficulties.

One other issue that came up, which I have taken note of and, indeed, want to put on record and give assurances on, is that many businesses, both large and small, indicated that, in the long term, the way forward is to have business improvement districts where local people and traders can decide how much they want to raise and how much they want to spend on that. Obviously, the 20% levy would have affected participation in the business improvement districts. For that reason, I put it on record again that I see it as a temporary measure. By the end of the current Budget period, the legislation should be in place for the bids and, at that stage, I would not see us having the 20% levy, plus business improvement districts. Those are some of the issues that emerged, and the detail of those responses will be shared with the Finance Committee in due course.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his robust answers. There has not been a revaluation of commercial properties since 2003. The next is planned for 2015: a gap of 12 years at a time of very volatile economic conditions. Will the Minister explain that gap?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We have seen difficulties as a result of that. I assume that that is what the Member is getting at. For example, I suspect that some of the larger stores that are being targeted in the small business rates relief scheme would have seen an uplift in their net annual value (NAV) anyway had we carried out the revaluation in 2010-11. There will be certain towns and parts of towns where there would have been a change in the NAV and the relative rates that would have been paid. Therefore, it has skewed the market somewhat.

The difficulty in trying to do a revaluation in 2010-11 was simply that the market was in such turmoil that, had we done it, first, we were concerned that it would not have met the international standards that are laid down for a proper valuation and, secondly, it would have been challenged very quickly because the data would have soon gone out of date. So we were between the devil and the deep blue sea, and we probably made the only choice that we could have, albeit I am not denying that it has caused some problems.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle, Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra.

Notwithstanding the view that every little helps, does the Minister consider that the average benefit to small businesses of £700 per annum is enough, and are there any other measures that he can take that will give added support to small businesses?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Rates were one of the biggest overheads, after rent, that small businesses faced. Therefore, the reduction, on average, of about £740 a year still had a sizeable impact on the overheads that the shops and the businesses were going to face. We have, of course, introduced other measures, which have been designed to help not just small businesses. I have made the point to some of the large retailers who have come to see me that we are the only part of the United Kingdom where, for the past four years, in real terms, there has been a freeze in the regional rate, and, for the next four years, in real terms, there will be a freeze in the regional rate. In no other part of the United Kingdom have large or small businesses had that kind of benefit in local taxation. That was a conscious decision to help businesses in Northern Ireland, which was made against some opposition in the Assembly during the previous Budget debate. The small business rates relief scheme, as we are proposing it for next year, is an extension of what we have had in place for the past year.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

From 2005-06 to 2009-2010, the EU structural funds programme awarded about £6·5 million to projects in the East Antrim constituency. There are about 100 different projects, but, for the sake of time — I imagine that you would probably rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker — I am not going to read them out. I will send a copy to the Member and leave one in the Library.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

I thank Mr Wilson for that answer. What is the estimated multiplier benefit to the East Antrim constituency?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

A lot of the projects help to support small voluntary organisations, and, in some cases, that will pay the wages of workers. The money will be spent locally for services in the East Antrim economy. Some of the projects are bigger capital projects, and it is difficult to know whether the work is given to firms in East Antrim or beyond. However, given the nature of the spend and the fact that it tends to be local spend, the multiplier effect would be quite high, though we do not have an actual estimate of what it would be.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister talked about smaller projects. Will he confirm that larger projects, such as the A8 at £115 million, could also be entitled to structural funds, so that moneys would be available for other improvements throughout Northern Ireland? That additional money would benefit the local economy.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There are very strict criteria for the way in which the money is spent. Some large projects in East Antrim have already benefited from it. Nearly £2 million has gone to the Gobbins path project, and because of the money that the council and other bodies are putting in, it will be of immense benefit to the area, not just in the construction of the Gobbins path, but, much more importantly, in the number of visitors that it will attract to East Antrim. Indeed, it is reckoned that that project could probably compete in visitor numbers with the Giant’s Causeway once it is completed and with all the other spin-off effects that there are likely to be.

As far as roads projects are concerned, there is some danger that all the INTERREG money might not be spent in, I think, 2014-15, and there is some risk attached there. Therefore, we are looking to see whether we can put the funds towards any large projects that come under the criteria, so that we do not lose the funding.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The Minister is noted for his Eurosceptical position. [Laughter.] I do not know whether the Minister was in the House of Commons for the vote last night, but I am sure that he will not resile from his Eurosceptical position. However, does he agree that European structural funds are a net benefit to Northern Ireland and that we should maximise opportunities therein?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am very proud of my party’s record. In fact, we were the only party that attended and had a 100% vote in favour of a referendum in the House of Commons last night. Indeed, we did not even have to be whipped in order to get there. Members may laugh, but do not forget the impact of Europe and European regulation on businesses in Northern Ireland and right across the United Kingdom, the amount of red tape, the loss of sovereignty and the fact that nearly 60% of the regulations that apply in Northern Ireland do not even get debated in this Chamber because they are imposed by some bureaucrats in Brussels. Therefore, there are very good reasons why people who have not had a say about our place in Europe for 52 years should have a say.

Now, what was the question? [Laughter.]

Maybe the Member should bear in mind that the United Kingdom makes a net contribution of £10·8 billion to Europe every year, and that money is not then available for spending on mainstream programmes. Indeed, if you look at the benefit that we in Northern Ireland receive from Europe and then take even the Barnett consequential of £10·8 billion and make it available to the UK Government to spend in our own country instead of it going to Europe, you will see that the net effect of us having control of that money would probably be that we would be quids in.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what is the expected increase in domestic rates income annually, due to the introduction of rates on empty domestic properties. (AQO 651/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

When the Executive agreed to introduce the rating of empty homes, my Department estimated that up to £10 million would be available to us in the first full year of operation. The measure was introduced in October, and Land and Property Services has already sent out bills totalling £10 million for the half year. As it is a new taxation measure, we are not sure of the full amount.

We have a test, given the exemptions. Do not forget that some owners will be exempt because their houses are not capable of habitation. Some people will be exempt because, although they are the main dweller in the house, they are in a nursing home and, therefore, will not have to pay rates. Others will be subject to probate and, therefore, will not have to pay rates. Finally, a number of properties will already be occupied. We may have not yet identified that those houses are occupied, and they, of course, will become liable for rates. However, that is not a net gain as such because the properties were occupied anyhow.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Minister. You referred to exemptions. In my constituency of North Antrim, empty properties that are in the ownership of the banks have been allowed to become structurally insecure. Will those properties be rated even if there is no one living in them due to the banks’ failure to secure them?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

If houses are in the ownership of the banks and the banks have the right to use them, they will become liable for the rates. What determines whether a property is uninhabitable will be for the owner of the property and the district valuer to decide. When we talked about the issue, some landlords made the threat that they would simply go in and trash the houses. I really do not see any benefit in that because of the amount of trashing that would have to be done to make a house uninhabitable. It is not a case of just cutting off the electricity or water. For a house to be deemed uninhabitable, it will be required to be in quite a state of disrepair. I really do not see the financial benefit of people doing thousands of pounds worth of damage to houses that are in their ownership just to escape a year or two years’ rates. Although there has been the scare that people will simply let houses fall into disrepair, if they do that, they will be allowing an asset to depreciate in value far more than the cost of the rates that would be imposed.