Official Report (Hansard)

COMMITTEE FOR ENTERPRISE, TRADE & INVESTMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Giant’s Causeway Visitors’ Centre

11 September 2007

Members present for all or part of the proceedings: 
Mr Mark Durkan (Chairperson) 
Mr Paul Maskey (Deputy Chairperson) 
Mr Leslie Cree 
Mr Simon Hamilton 
Ms Jennifer McCann 
Dr Alasdair McDonnell 
Mr Alan McFarland 
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin 
Mr Sean Neeson 
Mr Robin Newton 
Mr David Simpson

Witnesses: 
Mr Noel Cornick ) Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment
Mr Ciaran McGarrity )
Mr Stephen Quinn )

The Chairperson (Mr Durkan):
I thank Mr Stephen Quinn, permanent secretary of the Department, and his colleagues Mr Noel Cornick and Mr Ciaran McGarrity for making themselves available at such short notice. The Committee appreciates that and the fact that there may be some limits on what they can say. We recognise that some dimensions stray into the remits of other Departments as well as that of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The Committee has heard presentations from the Tourist Board and the Department’s tourism policy branch about the work that is being done at the Giant’s Causeway. It had been briefed to expect developments along a particular line. A full briefing on a signature project at the Giant’s Causeway and, indeed, other projects has been factored into our forward work programme. The Committee wants to understand what is going on.

Mr Stephen Quinn (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment):
It is important to make a clear distinction between a planning decision and a tourism investment decision. The planning decision on the Giant’s Causeway is not even a decision, as such. The Minister of the Environment has said that she is “of a mind to approve” a private-sector application for a visitor centre at the causeway. Once that intention was formed and defined, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment decided that he must consider the implications of that for the Department’s previous intentions for its own project with the Tourist Board. His view, which I expect he will repeat during the Adjournment debate this afternoon, is straightforward and simple: if, as is likely, the planning Minister approves a private-sector facility at the Giant’s Causeway, it would be bad value for the Department to spend public-sector money on developing a project, bearing in mind that it would cost in the region of £21 million.

That is the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s position. He received a statement about a planning issue from Mrs Foster, the Minister of the Environment, and assessed its implications for the Department’s plans for the project.

The other point that I want to make is that the Minister’s central objective is to have world-class visitor facilities at the Giant’s Causeway, one of our premier tourist attractions. Who owns, procures or operates it he sees as a second-order consideration.

The Chairperson:
Other members will have some questions about that.

You said that once the Minister of the Environment’s decision was formed and defined the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment had to make a decision.

Mr Quinn:
Yes.

The Chairperson:
When did the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment become aware that that decision had been formed and defined by the Minister of the Environment?

Mr Quinn:
The Minister of the Environment’s statement was being finalised on Friday.

The Chairperson:
So it was formed and defined on Friday?

Mr Quinn:
Yes. That is right in a sense.

The Chairperson:
So he received a statement from the Minister of the Environment on Friday?

Mr Quinn:
The detailed drafting changed during the day, but the final draft of the Minister of the Environment’s statement was on Friday.

The Chairperson:
What degree of consultation took place between the Minister, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and other interested parties, such as the Tourist Board, on the implications?

Mr Quinn:
That is a very important question. I wish to make it absolutely clear that neither the Minister nor the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment were active players in that planning decision. We had, and still have, a clear interest in a decision being made at the earliest possible opportunity. However, the Minister and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment did not have a locus, or a role of any kind, in the making of that decision. The Minister of the Environment took the decision in the context of her powers.

Mr Neeson:
I am very grateful to you all for coming at such short notice.

I have been involved with this for a number of years, and in 2001 as the then Deputy Chair of the Enterprise, Trade and Industry Committee, I chaired a series of meetings between the National Trust and Seymour Sweeney, but there was no outcome. Six years have elapsed since then, and I know that there was a competition.

How much money has been spent on the project so far by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment?

Mr Quinn:
The expenditure by the Department on the project is in the region of £1.2m.

Mr Neeson:
One point two?

Mr Quinn:
Yes.

The Chairperson:
Over what period?

Mr Quinn:
Since 2003; since the launch of the international competition.

The Chairperson:
Was that all spent in a context of everyone knowing that there was another planning application?

Mr Quinn:
Yes. However, looking back, although we were aware that the planning application had been lodged, there was no great expectation that it was going to proceed quickly to a positive conclusion. Sean Neeson discovered how difficult it is to get consensus on visitor facilities at the Giant’s Causeway when he was on the last Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment did enter into that, but in the context that there was no agreement at the time among the key stakeholders and no apparent prospect of an early decision on the private-sector planning application. The Department, probably under the guidance of direct rule Ministers, decided that it would assume a project promoter, or project developer, role.

However, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment said in his statement yesterday that the Department went onto the field as a developer of last resort, in the absence of agreement on an alternative solution.

Mr Neeson:
Did the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board seek planning permission for the proposed project?

Mr Quinn:
No. In fact, planning permission could not have been sought for the project because, while the design had been produced following an international competition, some critical planning issues had not been resolved; therefore, a planning application could not have been submitted. Perhaps our greatest difficulty related to car parking for the facility, and that has still not been resolved. Ciaran McGarrity walked the streets of Bushmills in search of car parking solutions for the project, which gives members some idea of the effort that the Department put into the project. No solution was found, but that is not to say that a solution could not be found if further efforts were made.

Nonetheless, the great circumstantial change since restoration of devolution has been that the Minister of the Environment has brought the project forward and appears to have prioritised a decision on it. Her statement on Monday radically changed how the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and his Department viewed the project. Attention was drawn to the fact that we have spent £1·2 million on the project and if it does not proceed that is unfortunate, because the money will not have been used productively. The question facing the Minister is whether to spend more money on the project development and, particularly, whether to spend in excess of £21 million on the physical development of the project.

Mr McFarland:
There was enormous angst over Belfast harbour during the Assembly’s first mandate, and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment got terribly fraught over it. You say that the Minister has said that, as long as it is world class, he does not care who owns or develops the Giant’s Causeway visitors’ centre. I do not see how such words can be applied to the crown jewels of Belfast Harbour, or to the crown jewels of the Causeway site, which is a world heritage site. We have spent a long time discussing the development of the visitors’ centre but, suddenly, in a matter of two days, we are hurtling at 90 mph towards a decision, with no alternative, and everyone is wondering where all this came from. I do not understand how we can suddenly attribute those words to a project such as the Giant’s Causeway.

Mr Quinn:
Are those Mr Dodds’s words?

Mr McFarland:
You have just quoted them.

Mr Quinn:
I did not say that he did not care. I said that it was a second-order consideration.

Mr McFarland:
I wrote down what I heard you say, but I must have misheard. Unfortunately, no one is present from Hansard to report the meeting.

Mr Quinn:
The objective of the tourism Minister is to have world-class facilities at this important tourist attraction. The Minister takes the view that whoever procures, owns and operates it is less important. He must weigh the issues of procurement, ownership and operation against the prospect of spending in excess of £21 million of taxpayers’ money on a development that a private-sector developer appears to be willing to pay for.

The Chairperson:
That may be the Minister’s view, but it is not the view of other people who are regarded as stakeholders and relevant players in the project. You mentioned the difficulties that there have been in the process. If that is singularly the Minister’s view, is it right that a decision is taken in that way?

Mr Quinn:
Let us remind ourselves of what the Environment Minister said: she said that she was “of a mind” to approve the application and that she has asked her officials to engage with local stakeholders on some issues.

Our Minister has inferred that, in the circumstances defined in the Minister of the Environment’s statement, it would be inappropriate for the Department to incur further expenditure of taxpayers’ money on the project.

The Chairperson:
If all that we have is a statement from the Minister saying that she is “of a mind” to approve the application and the decision has not yet been made, why is it being treated as a decision? A game of, “now you see it, now you don’t” seems to be being played. On one hand, no planning decision has been made, but on the other, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is treating the matter as though a decision as you described it has been formed and defined.

After all, just because she is of a mind to grant planning permission does not mean that work on the project will begin. We know of cases in which permission for a development was granted, but it was a long time before anything was done on it.

Given the priority that your Department and the industry attaches to development on the site, which is so significant to our tourism portfolio, is it not somewhat premature for the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to have —

Mr Quinn:
The Minister is defining his and the Department’s position specifically and precisely in the context that was set by the Minister of the Environment’s statement.

The Chairperson:
Does that not create a precedent for any major project with which a variety of Departments and Ministers might be dealing, in that if a Department gets wind of a planning application, and it emerges that the Minister of the Environment or her officials might be minded to grant it permission, no one will consider any other project?

Mr Quinn:
That rather underweights the significance of what the Minister of the Environment said. If she took the deliberate step of issuing a statement in those terms, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment had to consider that it carried a certain weight.

The practical question for the Minister and the Department is whether they should spend money on professional fees for their project, given that the Minister of the Environment’s statement is in the public domain. The Minister is clearly of the view that we should not.

The Chairperson:
Perhaps the Minister of the Environment could decide where she wants to put the national stadium — that would sort out that debate as well.

Mr McFarland:
I am worried. I was not worried before, but now I am now exercised about the matter. As I understand it, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is neutral on the issue, despite being responsible for tourism and for such a key project, which is one of our star projects, as the Tourist Board told the Committee. Despite all that, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has no real view on the matter. He seems to be asking what he should do, given that the Minister responsible for planning has taken a decision. He also seems to be saying that he has no option but to go with the project on cost grounds.

You could argue that the Minister responsible for tourism has a duty to defend one of his landmark projects. However, is he perhaps saying that the Minister of the Environment has made a decision that he has examined and is happy with? By agreeing with — or not challenging — the decision, he is indicating that he is happy with it and thinks that it is the best deal.

Are you saying that that is the case? It seems that you are saying that he had no option. It is a bit like the plan b situation — he has no option, he is strung up, so what is he to do? However, that cannot be the case, because he has a duty and a responsibility to do what is best for tourism, for Northern Ireland, and for our landmark project. He has been given a scenario that he has decided, that — having examined Mr Sweeny’s submission — is the best plan.

My recollection is hazy, but we debated the matter in the first Assembly, and my understanding is that there are a lot of houses attached to the project. Is that correct?

Mr Quinn:
We have taken no part in the processing or consideration of the planning application.

Mr McFarland:
Perhaps you should have. If you are going to build a centre at the Giant’s Causeway and put a housing estate around it, does that not pose major questions for our tourism industry and the Minister?

Mr Quinn:
My understanding is that no housing is in the planning application. However, I would need to check that with the Planning Service.

You were paraphrasing my Minister’s position somewhat.

The Minister considers the delivery and construction of world-class leisure facilities at the Giant’s Causeway to be a top priority. He is confident that any approval that the Minister of the Environment gives will be sufficiently conditioned to ensure that those facilities are world-class.

The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is also responsible for getting value for money. He has a statement, in defined terms, from the Minister of the Environment that poses the question of whether he should proceed to spend £21 million on a public-sector facility, when there is the potential that a private-sector developer will foot that bill himself. That is the balance of considerations with which the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is faced.

The Chairperson:
That raises other questions.

Ms J McCann:
There is great public interest in the issue. It has been said that, instead of using public money, a private developer will build those facilities. The fact that most of the profits will go back into that developer’s pocket affects public confidence.

Will the Minister declare his party’s relationship with Seaport Investments Ltd, and its owner, Seymour Sweeney? Public confidence in this Department, if not this Government, must be renewed.

Mr Quinn:
On the question of public interest, I will stray slightly into the Department of the Environment’s territory. The purpose of the planning system is explicitly to regulate land use in the public interest — that is what the planning process is for. Therefore, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment places its confidence in the Minister of the Environment and her Department to do that.

It is not for me to respond to the second question. The Minister and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment do not have a problem with people making a profit in Northern Ireland. We like to see people making profits in Northern Ireland.

Ms J McCann:
The people do not like others making profits from their heritage site. They want those profits to go back into the local community.

Mr Quinn:
The question is whether a developer who is prepared to make an investment is entitled to a return on it. My Department’s answer to that would be yes.

The Chairperson:
You have confirmed that the Department and its agents have been engaged in this project since 2003. Therefore, they knew all along that a private investor was interested in the project, that a planning application had been made and that cost had been incurred. Is the Minister saying that, to date, no expenditure should have been incurred?

Mr Quinn:
The Minister is not saying that. The Department did know that a private-sector developer was interested in developing a visitors’ facility. We also knew that a planning application had been submitted. However, that planning application was in the system for years. The Minister of the Environment has now brought that application to the point at which she was able to make the statement in the terms that she did on 17 September 2007. Therefore, there has been a significant change in the circumstances and context within which our Minister and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment are operating.

The Chairperson:
I will return to questions about that change of circumstances.

Mr P Maskey:
The situation is getting worse. Alan McFarland asked whether housing facilities had been included in the plans. Stephen said that he did not think that they had been, and that he would have to check. That is where the problem lies, because the Department is unsure about the actual make-up of the plan. However, the Committee is willing to say that we should not invest in it —

Mr Quinn:
Do you know for a fact that housing is contained in that planning application?

Mr P Maskey:
No, but my role is not to know the facts. You represent the Department, and you say that you are unsure. The Committee is here to scrutinise you; you are not here to scrutinise the Committee. That should be made clear.

Mr Quinn:
Fair enough.

The Chairperson:
Houses could also be included in a subsequent planning application. Of course, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment could then say that that had nothing to do with him because it was a planning matter.

Mr P Maskey:
We may be touching on issues that the witness may not like to answer. However, the scrutinising role belongs to the Committee.

If you are unsure, and you cannot answer or give a 100% commitment that houses are not included in the planning application —

Mr Quinn:
I undertake to clarify that point and report the outcome to the Committee this afternoon.

Mr P Maskey:
That is fair enough, and I appreciate it. I am not saying that houses will be built there, but the fact is that the Department is still unclear on that. If we were to delve into a number of other issues, I am sure that the Department would also be unclear on them.

I cannot understand how the Minister can say something on a Friday, make a statement on the following Monday, and the Department just agrees with it. The process has been rushed. I always thought that planning proposals had to be put to a local council and the people who live in the area to find out if there were any objections. The Minister has not responded to residents or businesses who might have lodged objections to the proposal.

As a signature project, the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre has to be worked out properly. The Committee is glad that you have come along to answer our questions, but we are unhappy at the way in which the matter has been handled. We want to support the signature project and hope to continue to do so, but it is not good enough for a Minister to make a decision on it without consulting the Committee. We have not been consulted, yet the decision has been made.

The fact that the decision has been made by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Minister of the Environment may prolong the outcome. A judicial review into the two Ministers’ decisions could prolong the process by another three or four years, and that could result in the cost of the project rising above the initial estimate of £21 million.

Mr Quinn:
I will deal with the point on consultation. When the Minister of the Environment said that she was “of a mind to approve” the planning application by Seaport Investments Ltd, that was a preliminary opinion, subject to the normal consultative processes that apply to a major planning application. It is not for me to answer on behalf of the Minister or the Department of the Environment, but I assume that that is where her statement stands in the process.

Can you repeat the second point that you made?

Mr P Maskey:
I made a number of points. It should be emphasised that the Giant’s Causeway is a world heritage site. There may be judicial reviews of the Ministers’ decisions because people feel that they have not been treated fairly. The worldwide design competition, which cost £1·5 million, was successful but the Ministers have not paid attention to it. That is a considerable amount of money to throw out.

The Chairperson:
You referred to the Minister of the Environment’s decision as being a preliminary indication. However, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s decision converts that indication into a conclusive decision. On the basis of a preliminary indication that someone was minded to approve a planning application, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment decided that his Department’s work on the project be aborted. That seems bizarre.

Mr Quinn:
The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment said that, under the circumstances created by Minister of the Environment’s announcement, he could not conscientiously proceed to spend more money on a public-sector project.

Mr Hamilton:
I am struck by the irony of some of the comments that have been made by some members. They have mentioned “prematurity” and said that the decision has been made at “90 miles per hour”. In fact, the length of time that it has taken for the process to arrive at this stage cannot be described as premature or taking place at such a speed.

At the weekend, I was at a conference, which was also attended by Jennifer McCann, where several discussions about economic development took place. The Giant’s Causeway visitor centre project was cited as one which did not shine a particularly good light on Northern Ireland and how we deal with major projects of this kind. I am glad that some movement is now being made in the right direction on this. Some politicians in Northern Ireland think that unless a facility such as the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre is provided by the public centre, it cannot possibly be good and do everything that is required of it.

Is DETI satisfied that the private-sector project meets all of the various essential criteria that are required of a world heritage site visitors’ centre including the important aspect of car parking, which is currently a shambles?

Mr Quinn:
The issue of car parking provision is a matter for the planning process, which has to take account of the world heritage designation that applies to the vicinity of the Giant’s Causeway. We have seen Seaport Investment Ltd’s design. However, we have not taken a view on the matter. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has not made any representation for or against his own project or the Seaport project. His objective is to have world-class facilities at the Giant’s Causeway, so he is neutral, in that sense. DETI is placing its confidence in the planning process to deliver world-class facilities at the Giant’s Causeway and will have an ongoing interest in the standard of those facilities.

Mr Cree:
I hope that you are not disappointed in the outcome. This matter has been ongoing since 2000 and, while I like to see things moving quickly, progress taking place over a weekend is very quick indeed. The choreography was bizarre to say the least. Like the Chairman, I find it difficult to understand why the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment felt he had to move straight away and without a formal planning decision having been made. Mr Quinn has laboured that point, but it is fundamental.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment made his decision without consulting with the partners involved — because there was a public partnership bid running alongside the private bid. In Angela Smith’s comments to a written question in Parliament last year, she said that good progress had been made, and that work was already underway, with projects, teams and architects, etc.

The Chairperson: 
That was what the Committee was told.

Mr Cree:
Suddenly, things have changed, and no one is sure as to the reasons. I understand that the private bid is for a development of private land, not on the nine acres that is owned by Moyle District Council; those nine acres are still intact.

I also fail to understand why the partnership was aborted suddenly, and just when the comprehensive spending review is taking place? Was that a factor in the decision to save £21 million?

Mr Quinn:
I will answer four points. I disagree that the decision was taken over the period of a weekend: it was not. My understanding is that the Minister of the Environment was considering the matter since she came into office on 8 May 2007. However, I agree with Mr Cree in the sense that the issue crystallised over the weekend. The choreography, as described by Mr Cree, is, in my opinion, an example of joined-up Government. The Minister of the Environment took a planning decision, and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who is responsible for tourism, assessed the implications of that for an investment decision, and the result was good, joined-up Government.

Mr Cree: 
It is good, joined-up Government only if the Executive is aware of it.

The Chairperson: 
Mr Quinn, you referred to the fact that the Minister of the Environment’s decision was finalised on Friday, or that the statement was being finalised then. You said that the decision was not just taken over the weekend. Over what period of time was the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment aware that the Minister of the Environment was contemplating the decision?

Mr Quinn: 
It was a considerable period of time. DETI, as the Department responsible for tourism, had been recommending to the DOE that an early decision be reached, as the absence of a decision on the private-sector planning application was clearly complicating DETI’s ability to proceed with its own project in a cost-effective way, and that is effectively what the Minister of the Environment delivered yesterday.

The Chairperson:
So did the Department make far more representations seeking an early decision on the private planning application?

Mr Quinn:
Yes, to the extent that I wrote to my permanent secretary colleague in the Department of the Environment asking for an early decision. We made no indication —

The Chairperson:
When did you send that letter?

Mr Quinn:
Maybe a month or so ago.

The Chairperson:
What was the particular issue about the planning permission that was affecting the project that we have been briefed on?

Mr Quinn:
As accounting officer, I was concerned that we were on the point of spending a lot more money on professional fees on a project which might, or might not, be the only project on the field. What else could I do but try to create or encourage the clarity necessary to make an informed value-for-money judgement?

The Chairperson:
You said earlier that the Minister did not have any views one way of the other on the planning application, but clearly the Department wanted a decision.

Mr Quinn:
The Minister was in the same position as the Department, namely he wanted a decision at the earliest possible opportunity. He, like us, was conscious that time was passing, that the facilities were not being delivered and that there was a fundamental question mark over whether we should proceed to spend a lot more taxpayers’ money on the project in the light of the possibility of a decision on the private-sector application.

The Chairperson:
The fact that you wrote to DOE back then — and presumably this was discussed with the Minister — means that there was a time when your other partners on the public-sector project could have been told that the work could be caught up in a change of circumstances if planning permission were granted, etc, etc. Why were people not told? Why was the Committee not told?

Mr McFarland:
Indeed, two briefings — the Tourist Board and the Department? We were not told.

Mr Quinn:
My Department has been working on our project. We have been trying to resolve the planning problem with car parking for our project, so far without a final solution. It was not that we had completely stopped. However, I was anxious about spending substantial amounts of money on professional fees. We were only asking the planning department for an early decision. We had nothing to tell the National Trust or Moyle District Council — the other groups in partnership with the Tourist Board. Everybody has an interest in an early decision so that sufficient clarity would allow informed decisions about what to do next.

The Chairperson:
Had the Department received any representations that would encourage an early decision?

Mr Quinn:
No.

The Chairperson: 
You received no representations from any interested party or from any MLA?

Mr Quinn:
The Department did not need any prompting. The Department was facing fundamental uncertainty while the private-sector planning application was in process. There was a real issue about whether, in those circumstances, it was proper to proceed with spending substantial amounts of more public money. The circumstances changed in the terms defined by the Minister of the Environment yesterday.

The Chairperson:
It appears to me that when anybody wants to stop any significant project in future, he can just submit a planning application: nobody can do anything if there is a planning application.

Mr Quinn:
I do not agree with that. It was not the existence of a planning application that changed the circumstance. The circumstance was changed by the fact that the Minister of the Environment made a public statement about the planning application, which indicated her thinking.

The Chairperson:
That brings us back to the choreography question. I find it hard to believe that those things just happened in ways that were not syndicated.

Mr Cree:
There are still three points Mr Quinn has to answer.

Mr Quinn:
We have touched on the partnership point. The Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is not an active player in the planning process. The planning process is for decision-making by DOE, the planners and the Minister of the Environment, so we had no control over the decision reached by the Minister or the way in which she presented it. We took account of it. Both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment exhorted the partners to work closely with the private developer to try to devise a mutually attractive solution.

The Department feels that local stakeholders still have a contribution to make, but that is a decision for them. The Minister had to make a decision in the context of the circumstances created by the Minister of the Environment’s statement.

The Chairperson: 
A statement that the Department sought.

Mr Cree: 
Again, you are saying that it was a decision when it was not.

Mr Quinn: 
No. We did —

The Chairperson: 
The decision was sought.

Mr Quinn: 
The Department did not seek that statement or any indication of intention. We sought a decision one way or the other, and we were neutral.

In answer to Leslie Cree’s last point, the Committee has seen the Department’s comprehensive spending review submissions, which included a bid for the public-sector Giant’s Causeway project. The circumstances under which we made that submission have now changed.

Getting back to Leslie Cree’s point about the comprehensive spending review, our attitude to the Giant’s Causeway project is driven by value-for-money considerations rather than budgetary ones. The Department feels that it could get budgetary cover for the public-sector project, if that was the desired solution. The question now is whether, given the newly-created circumstances, spending more taxpayers’ money on the project would represent value for money.

Mr Cree: 
But that was a path that the Department had already committed to.

Mr Quinn: 
Yes, although bear in mind that the costs have escalated from £14 million to £21 million, so at the very least, the Department had to revisit the economic appraisal.

Ms J McCann: 
You talk about value for money and the money invested in the project. How much of the money that it will generate will go back into the local area, and how much will go straight into the pocket of a private developer? I am not so sure that it will be value for money. Although some PFI projects are not always value for money — there have been two recent examples — that does not seem to affect the decision about whether such projects should proceed.

Members of the public have a real interest in this and feel that a heritage site — which belongs to the people — is going to be squandered by a private developer, because the money that the project will generate will not go back into the local area. That is a big concern for people there, and I am not sure that the value-for money argument weighs up.

Mr Quinn: 
I do not believe that the private-sector application will be delivered by a PFI project — this is just private-sector investment. I do not know what public opinion is on whether the project should be owned and paid for by the public sector or paid for by a private-sector developer, which would consequently relieve the taxpayers of the budgetary consequences. That is an open question.

Mr McFarland: 
To recap, in 2001-02 Dr Paisley and Ian Paisley Jnr led a delegation from Seymour Sweeney to see the then Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, on the subject. There was a lot of discussion on that at the time. Something then happened to park that application, and the Department turned to the public-sector effort — which has cost roughly £1·5 million so far — which was the mainstream application from then on. So a decision was taken by the Department to pursue that route, while the private initiative was shelved, awaiting planning permission, for which it has been waiting a long time. The Department took the command decision to move onto an entirely different track, with other partners, to try to implement the project by public means. Up until Friday, that looked like the only game in town.

The private bid had been parked for some years, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was charging along the public-sector route. Is there some change of circumstance of which the Committee is unaware? I could understand if the Department were riding two horses, with one foot on a private planning application that was awaiting a decision, and the other on the public-sector option. The Department may have been considering both options and intended to go with whichever was best for Northern Ireland. That is what has led to the current situation.

What has changed other than that the Minister with responsibility for planning has suddenly made a decision to release a project that had been parked for some years? I am trying to find the missing piece of the jigsaw to make sense of it all because, in the normal way of doing things, it does not make sense. Am I missing something?

Mr Quinn:
I will focus on the term “parked” for a moment, because I am not quite sure who was doing the parking, and I do not mean car parking.

The Chairperson:
Do not go on to that subject.

Mr Quinn:
Car parking is a recurring theme in our Giant’s Causeway trials and tribulations.

You are right, Mr McFarland, that in 2003 the then direct rule Government decided to assume leadership of the public-sector project. As to what has changed since then, I guess that the circumstances —

Mr McFarland:
Do you know why that decision was made?

Mr Quinn:
I can only infer, because I was not there at the time. I think that the Government had stepped in to a void. After several attempts to unravel the Gordian knot at the Giant’s Causeway, including a previous Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s endeavour, there was no consensus, no agreement, and nothing was going to happen. Therefore, the Government took over responsibility and brought forward a public-sector solution. You may ask whether they were right to do so in the circumstances. However, that was in 2003, and, in September 2007, which is over four years later, the Minister with responsibility for planning has for the first time said that she is minded to go with the private-sector option.

Mr McFarland:
Does that mean that the direct rule Minister in charge of planning could, technically, have given similar permission in 2003? Presumably there is a reason that that Minister did not run with that application in 2003. If it is OK to run with the private-sector planning application now, why did the Minister in 2003 not do so?

Mr Quinn:
We cannot answer that. Given that we are not active participants in the planning process, we simply do not know. The Planning Service has an open-file policy; therefore, the relevant file could be examined. If you consider the circumstances that faced Ministers in 2003, you could take the view that they were right: nothing was happening, and they filled a void. However, that was the case in 2003.

The Minister with responsibility for planning fundamentally changed the circumstances, and Minister Dodds is simply reacting in an orderly, rational and logical way to that.

Mr McFarland:
The knot that caused the change in policy existed in 2003, yet on Friday the Minister seems to have completely unravelled it simply by saying that she is minded to produce permissions for the private-sector application. In doing so, has she unravelled whatever knot had prevented any progress taking place for several years?

Mr Quinn:
I cannot answer that: it was essentially a planning, not a tourism, knot.

Mr McFarland:
If the knot was far too complex to be unravelled in 2003, what allowed the Minister for planning to last Friday solve something that no one had been able to solve before, leading her to change tack completely?

Mr Quinn:
I cannot answer that.

Mr McFarland:
Can the Committee find out?

Mr Quinn:
I am outside the planning process.

Mr McFarland:
Given that the subject under discussion is one of your Minister’s major tourism projects, is he not curious as to what has changed between 2003, when the direct rule planning Minister, working with other Ministers, could not give planning permission, and 2007, when two Ministers, who are also arguably working together, are now able to grant permission?

Mr Quinn:
My Minister’s objective is to have world-class facilities at the Giant’s Causeway. He places confidence in the Minister of the Environment, and in the planning process, to ensure that that happens in a manner that is consistent with all the designations and tourism directives that apply. We are outside that process. I can certainly take receipt of that question, and ask the Department of the Environment (DOE) to provide a note, but there is no way that we can answer that question.

Furthermore, it would be improper for us to know some of that information. That would have made us an active participant in the planning process. We were an interested party; we had a project that was, potentially, the subject of a planning application that could have been seen as being in competition with the private-sector application.

Mr McFarland:
I understand that. However, is the Minister not curious about it? This whole Giant’s Causeway thing is his responsibility. The Planning Service has no ownership of the project, other than to examine whether, in planning law, A or B can be done.

The Minister is in charge of all this; he is responsible. The Committee has met here, the Minister has attended and so have representatives of the Tourist Board, who extolled the virtues of this landmark project. Is no one curious as to why, in 2003, that project was so complex and difficult, in planning terms, that the planning Minister at the time could not say that he was happy with it, and yet suddenly, in 2007, the circumstances have changed? That which no one could unravel in 2003 has suddenly been unravelled in 2007; a report from the Planning Service to the Minister says that it is OK.

Mr Quinn:
I cannot answer as to the degree or intensity of the Minister’s curiosity.

Mr McFarland:
Is the Department not curious?

Mr Quinn:
I personally am not. My objective is the same as the Minister’s, namely, to get world-class visitor facilities at the Giant’s Causeway. I want that achieved in a manner consistent with our tourism objectives and the various environmental designations that apply to the world heritage site and at best value for money.

The Chairperson:
What gives you the confidence that that will happen now?

Mr Quinn:
We believe that the planning Minister is giving the application all of the necessary consideration, and, apparently, with a degree of urgency that may not have applied at earlier stages.

The Chairperson:
How aware is the Department of the detail of the plans that the private company has?

Mr Ciaran McGarrity (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment):
We are as aware of them as any other member of the public. We are aware of the scale, the location and the functionality of the visitor centre. Indeed, it mirrors a lot of what we proposed. We are aware of that headline detail.

The Chairperson:
So, on the basis that it is as aware of the same detail as the general public is, the Department has taken the decision that it has absolute confidence in the fact that this project will deliver the world class outcome that we are talking about?

Mr McGarrity:
It must be recognised that the application has been made to provide visitor facilities at the world heritage site. What is provided for in the proposal is common to most visitor centres: basic toilet facilities; an educational element; a catering element; and a public open space. Those are the key elements of that application. They were present in our proposals and are common to most visitor centres. On that basis, we expressed confidence in the application.

Mr P Maskey:
Has the Department looked at the business case for this new development? If not, why not? Surely it must do so before it makes a decision. That is the key to the situation, and the Committee needs to know. The Department owns the site, and it is its responsibility to ensure that the 0·5 million people who come here every year are looked after. The Department must find ways of drawing more visitors and more tourists to the site. It is the remit of this Department, as well as of the Tourist Board, to enhance visitor numbers. So, if there is a business case, did the Department look at it?

Mr Quinn:
May I make a factual point? The site is owned, not by the Department, but by Moyle District Council. One of the difficulties that Ministers and the Department have had since 2003 is that we do not have sufficient control. We do not own the site; we do not control the property interests. Others have property interests that amount almost to vetoes. That has made it a difficult project to progress.

We would not expect a business case for a private-sector development in this case, as in others. The planning process is designed to regulate land in the public interest. If, however, the developer were to ask the Government or the Tourist Board for grant assistance, a business case would of course come into play. That would be essential for the protection of value for money.

Mr P Maskey:
The Department is able to say that it had a proposal that would have cost £21 million, but that it will now drop it and not spend £21 million. It was the Department, yet we had not explored the proposal in great detail to see whether it was viable or whether it was viable for us to spend the £21 million. We have managed to stop that process.

Mr Quinn:
I am sorry; I did not quite follow you.

Mr P Maskey:
The Department had proposed to spend £21 million on the project, yet you say that you have not explored the business case for the other proposal to see whether it stacks up. The Department has a responsibility to attract tourists and to increase visitor numbers. We have not studied the proposal, yet we are able to say that there was £21 million on the table to spend but we are not now going to spend it.

Mr Quinn:
The basic answer is that, yes, we have a tourism interest and we have a continuing interest in the development of any proposal for a visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway. However, we do not routinely look at business cases for private developments.

Mr Neeson:
It is important to remember that several interested organisations are involved. You mentioned Moyle District Council, but the National Trust is also interested. Bearing in mind that the Giant’s Causeway is a world heritage site, has the National Trust been ignored? It has a big stake in the development.

Mr Quinn:
We are essentially talking about a planning decision with implications for an investment decision. The Minister wants to have an early meeting with the National Trust and Moyle District Council to discuss the position in the newly created circumstances. However, I cannot account for what happened in the planning process.

The Chairperson:
Several points have been touched on from a number of angles. Major issues have been raised, and a precedent has been set, particularly with regard to the sorts of arguments and justifications that are being given. We will clearly want to pursue the matter further, and that will include getting details of the Department’s representations to the DOE to encourage an early decision but not actually saying what that decision should be. It is clear from members’ remarks that they want to know the degree of awareness that existed between the Departments and the Ministers about what was emerging.

You said that the proposal was bid for as part of the comprehensive spending review (CSR), and we saw in previous presentations that it was in the running. Does that mean that the proposal has now been dropped as a CSR bid?

Mr Quinn:
We will have to review that urgently in the circumstances created by the statement of the Minister with responsibility for planning.

The Chairperson:
It would seem a bit strange to bid for something that is gone and has been aborted.

Mr Quinn:
Intuitively, the provision that we sought for that public-sector project will have to be removed.

The Chairperson:
Does that mean that it will be removed, rather than its removal being considered?

Mr Quinn:
Yes.

The Chairperson:
A minute ago, you said that it would have to be considered — now it is being removed.

Mr Quinn:
Yes. In these circumstances, the obvious logical inference is that the bid must be withdrawn.

Mr McFarland:
Would that free up money for the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP)? Does that money go back to DFP or is it lost completely?

Mr Neeson:
You will get your project in Derry.

[Laughter.]

Mr Quinn:
It will free money within the total capital envelope, yes.

Mr McFarland:
Will that be under the Department of Finance and Personnel?

Mr Quinn:
Yes, regrettably.

[Laughter.]

The Chairperson:
I am sure that the Department has other bids and priorities to consider.

What if, for some reason — on the basis that the Department has not seen the business plan and has no more knowledge of, and no more reason to have confidence in, that private-sector business plan’s ability to deliver — it does not actually deliver? If that happened, the Department would not be in a position to reassemble the original project on which it had worked. There is no money in the Budget to cover such a project. That is why some Committee members asked, earlier in the meeting, if it was not a bit premature to proceed from the Minister of the Environment’s preliminary statement to a full-blown decision to abort the public-sector project?

Mr Quinn:
A risk assessment should, and will, be undertaken.

The Chairperson:
Obviously, the Committee has other matters to attend to. Again, I thank Stephen, Noel and Ciaran for attending the meeting. Clearly, the Committee — and others — will have more questions. Several issues that some Committee members would have liked to ask about were not pursued because they are the domain of another Department. We will return to the issue.

Mr Quinn:
Chairman, you mentioned one or two points that you would like us to address. Can those be given to us in writing, please? Is that your intention?

The Chairperson:
Yes, it is.

Mr Quinn:
For instance, the point on whether housing is in or out of the private-sector application is one that we made a commitment on.

The Chairperson:
There is an issue around the correspondence between the Departments. However, the significant point will centre on how the Minister of the Environment’s decision was taken and had such an impact. It raises an issue of precedence. You made the point about joined-up government, in that instance. However, many people have questions as to who did the joining up in that situation, and in whose interests the joining up was done. To some of us, it seems more like lined-up government than joined-up government.

Mr Quinn:
Thank you.