Official Report (Hansard)

COMMITTEE FOR ENTERPRISE, TRADE & INVESTMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Giant’s Causeway Visitors’ Centre

18 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 Nigel Dodds ) The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment
Mr Ciaran McGarrity ) Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment
Mr Stephen Quinn )
Councillor Helen Harding ) Moyle District Council
Mr Richard Lewis )
Mr Kevin McGarry )
Ms Hilary McGrady ) The National Trust
Mr Graham Thompson )

The Chairperson (Mr Durkan):
I welcome members to the Committee’s eleventh meeting. I remind everyone that the meeting will be in public session and I ask that all mobile phones be switched off, because even in silent mode the phones interfere with the recording system. There are apologies from David Simpson and Francie Molloy. Are there any further apologies?

My next bit of housekeeping is to ask members to declare any new interests. As there is no response, I take it that there are none to declare.

Item 3 on the agenda is the briefing from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on the proposed developments at the Giant’s Causeway. Minister, you and your officials are very welcome.

To recap: following last week’s announcement by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, which followed the Minister of the Environment’s announcement on the likely approval for Seaport Investments Ltd’s planning application for a visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway, the Committee benefited from the attendance of senior officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) at last week’s meeting. It was appreciated that they appeared at short notice. Questions were asked and answers were given on matters that members felt warranted further consideration and examination.

At the conclusion of its discussions, the Committee did not decide to formally invite the Minister to appear before it — not because we did not want to hear from the Minister, but rather because we did not want such an invitation to be misinterpreted as the Minister being summonsed. The Committee agreed to convey to the Minister its willingness to receive him at any stage, given that it would be hearing from others in that regard. I communicated that message personally to the Minister. He has chosen to come before the Committee today, and that is appreciated. The Minister is accompanied by the permanent secretary of the Department, Stephen Quinn, and Ciaran McGarrity, who handles special tourism projects.

Before I invite the Minister to make his opening statement, I want to inform members that copies of four letters from DETI to the Department of the Environment (DOE) on various dates from March to August this year have been made available to members. I apologise that only now have members received those letters. The letters are in front of Committee members because of certain issues that emerged in exchanges with officials last week. During those exchanges, the permanent secretary referred to the fact that he had written to the DOE indicating that a decision on Seaport Investment’s Ltd application would be welcome — not indicating in what direction that decision would be, but that a decision would be welcome. There was some confusion as to when exactly that correspondence took place. Given that it was one of the areas that the Committee were likely to be pursuing further today, the correspondence has now been made available to members so that they can see that sequence of written communication between the Departments. Is that fair enough?

The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr Dodds):
Thank you, Mr Chairman, for outlining the lead-up to this meeting. I am happy to meet the Committee. I said, when I met the Committee for the first time, that, as far as possible, if I am available and if the Committee wants to share things with me, I am happy to attend — not on the basis of having been summoned to attend, but rather in the interests of sharing information on what my Department is doing and thinking on the matter under discussion and on other matters.

I welcome the opportunity to meet the Committee. Members know that Arlene Foster is the Minister of the Environment and that it is she who is dealing with the planning issues. As far as my responsibilities are concerned — tourism and investment — members also know that the Department, under direct rule Ministers, first intervened in the matter in 2003.

When I arrived in the Department in May 2007, the position was as follows: Seaport Investments Limited’s application was with the Department of the Environment (DOE). The public-sector project was being brought forward by the various stakeholders. On that project there were unresolved issues regarding car parking. There had also been a significant escalation in costs, from £14 million to £21 million, which raised value-for-money and budgetary issues. Of course, Committee members have been aware of those factors because they were mentioned in the Committee’s first-day brief, which the Department provided.

The Chairperson mentioned some correspondence. I thought that it would be useful, having looked at that, to share with the Committee the timeline on contacts and communications. It is quite important to set that all on record. On 11 May 2007, I wrote to the Minister of the Environment referring to a number of issues on which my Department’s and the DOE’s responsibilities touched — energy issues, Titanic Quarter, and the Giant’s Causeway. On 7 June 2007, I met Arlene Foster to discuss that range of issues — I met with other Ministers as well. At that meeting, regarding the Giant’s Causeway, we addressed both the need for a decision on the private-sector application and the car parking issues in the public-sector application.

On 1 August 2007 — which is the correspondence to which the Chairman referred and which the Committee has copies of — my Department wrote to DOE asking where Seaport Investments Limited’s application stood. In that letter, my Department referred to its letter of 8 March 2007 — of which the Committee has a copy. That letter explained that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) had to take decisions about committing to substantial further expenditure on professional fees. DETI said on 8 March 2007 — which was prior to devolution — that either a positive or a negative decision on Seaport Investments Limited’s application would inform its decision on how to proceed. That is significant because what that pre-devolution correspondence indicates is that the Department had a concern about value for money then, and that was reflected in the first-day brief that was given to the Committee.

On 21 August 2007, Minister Foster met me in the presence of DOE and DETI officials. At that stage Minister Foster indicated that she was of a mind to approve Seaport Investments Limited’s application but that she needed to have further discussions with her officials. We met on the basis that she was conveying information about the planning application in which I, and my Department, had expressed an interest. I attended the meeting as a listener. There was not, and could not have been, discussion of the merits of the planning application. On that I am advised by DOE that Minister Foster met her officials on 5 September 2007. [Interruption.]

The Chairperson:
I apologise, Minister. I ask those in the Public Gallery to switch off their mobile phones. Do not even leave them on silent mode. Please switch your phones off as they interfere with the recording of the meeting as well as disturbing proceedings — as we heard there now.

Mr Dodds:
Thank you.

Minister Foster, as I understand it, met her officials on 5 September 2007. A work-in-progress draft of the statement that she made on 10 September 2007 was sent to the Department on 6 September 2007.

The final version of that statement was sent on 7 September 2007. The statement that I made on 10 September 2007 was prepared in light of the new circumstances. That is an outline of the timeline for the correspondence in the lead-up to this meeting. The Committee has copies of that timeline.

I will make a few general points on my position. Although it was not my responsibility before May 2007, the objective has always been to have world-class visitor facilities at the Giant’s Causeway. In pursuing that objective, it is vital to consider the quality and viability of any development, and to protect the taxpayer’s interest.

The planning process must address the environmental issues. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will have input in the planning process as appropriate, in order to ensure that tourism considerations are brought to the planners’ attention.

The Giant’s Causeway attracts more than 500,000 visitors every year. Therefore, its financial viability should not be in doubt, but that is an issue that will be explored with the developer.

The cost of the project has increased from £14 million to £21 million. As public representatives, we must all deal with that issue. At a minimum, the increase requires the business case to be reappraised. The reappraisal must take into account the statement that Minister Foster made on 10 September 2007, because taxpayers’` money — in this case, £21 million — is normally committed to a project only if there is market failure. The planning Minister’s decision on Seaport Investment Ltd’s application raises the question of whether there is market failure.

That was the basis and rationale for the statement that I made on 10 September, and I have made it clear, both in and outside of the Assembly, that, in the circumstances that the Minster of the Environment outlined, I should not authorise expenditure on the public-sector project in the meantime.

Yesterday, in reply to a question for oral answer, I said that it would cost a total of £2·2 million — £1 million more than has been spent already — to take the public-sector project to contract stage.

All sorts of comments have been made about certain things being “dumped”. I wish to make it clear that it is down to the current circumstances that I am making the decision to put further public expenditure on hold. If those circumstances change, the position will be reviewed.

Against that background, I will meet with Moyle District Council and the National Trust very soon. I will also meet with the private-sector developer, and I want to encourage them to work together to deliver the kind of facility that the Giant’s Causeway deserves.

I hope that the Committee finds my initial observations helpful. I am happy to take questions, but I thought it would be useful to set out the timeline of exchanges of correspondence and meetings that took place.

The Chairperson:
Thank you, Minister, for providing that helpful information. Following the issues that were raised last week, I am sure that Committee members will have questions to ask.

Last week, DETI officials did not dispute the use of the word “aborted” when several MLAs used it to describe the status of the public-sector project — the project on which the Department, through the NITB, was leading. Members’ use of that word was not questioned at all.

In the Adjournment debate, you, along with several colleagues, said that your decision, and that of the Minister of the Environment, amounted to delivery of a new Giant’s Causeway visitor project at no expense to the taxpayer. Those were the terms in which the private-sector project was presented. Are you now saying we are not to look at the project in those terms? Are issues still pending, or under possible consideration, in light of other circumstances?

Mr Dodds:
How individual Members interpret certain terms is a matter for them.

The Chairperson:
Three Ministers spoke in that debate.

Mr Dodds:
Yes. It was partly because of criticisms about delay that the Adjournment topic was tabled on the new visitor centre at the Giant’s Causeway.

Of course, when decisions are being taken and progress is being made, one finds that the focus is directed elsewhere. The clear message is that under devolution at least, it is to be hoped that attention will be given to and action taken on matters that have been around for a considerable time. There has never been any doubt that the Minister of the Environment’s statement was made on the basis that she was “minded” to take a particular course of action. In the statement that I made on 10 September I said:

“It would not be a prudent use of taxpayers’ money to proceed further in the circumstances, given Minister Foster’s position on the private sector planning application.”

That is absolutely right. There can be no justification for continuing to put public money into a project when that expenditure could turn out to be nugatory. People have pointed to the £1·2 million that previous Ministers of Enterprise, Trade and Investment have already been spent on this project, and those people have said that that is wasted expenditure. How much more would they have to criticise if, in the light of that statement of intent from the Environment Minister, my Department spent more money? For my Department to do so is simply not tenable: there will be no further expenditure. Let us see what happens with the planning application. My Department will then review the matter.

The Chairperson:
Last week in the Assembly, and, indeed, in some interviews, you, other Ministers and some of your party colleagues said that the approval of a private-sector application would mean that a world-class facility at the Giant’s Causeway would be delivered without any expense to the taxpayer.

Mr Dodds:
We have said that the possibility exists. People are ruling out certain outcomes. My Department’s view is that if the project were to proceed, and it can do so only on the basis of approval of the planning application, it offers a situation in which, after seven years during which no progress on building has been made, an on-site facility at the Giant’s Causeway could be delivered. It is hoped that that will provide the best value for money for the public, will preserve the world-heritage site and its environment — which are matters for the Planning Service — and ensure that the project proceeds. There is absolutely no contradiction in what was said last week and in what I am saying now. We want to make progress on the project, and we are trying to do so.

The Chairperson:
What sight did your Department have of the Seaport Investments Ltd planning application?

Mr Dodds:
I will ask Ciaran McGarrity to answer that, given that he has been dealing with the project for a long time.

Mr Ciaran McGarrity (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment):
The Department saw the outline planning application that Seaport Investments Ltd submitted. That was the same application that was submitted to the Planning Service. It was available for any member of the public to see.

The Chairperson:
That is we were told last week: that the Department knew as much as any member of the public.

Mr McGarrity:
The Department did not seek any further detail from the developer about his application.

The Chairperson:
Therefore, did the Department not have any knowledge of business plans, etc?

Mr McGarrity:
It was a planning application. In that context, it was simply what was required for outline stage.

The Chairperson:
Were there no business plans, environmental appraisals, economic appraisals or suchlike?

Mr McGarrity:
No. A requisite of the planning application would have been that an environmental impact assessment accompanied it. As far as I am aware, a business plan would not have been required for planning.

The Chairperson:
Minister, were you aware of those other dimensions of Seaport Investments Ltd’s proposal?

Mr Dodds:
Do you mean in regard to the business plan and so on? No: I would have had no cause to see it because, as I have said, it is a planning application. There is nothing that would have necessitated, required or initiated the presentation of a business plan to my Department.

The Chairperson:
Did your decision, which was based on an indicative statement that was made by the Minister with responsibility for planning, not place a lot of weight on the quality, strength and viability of Seaport Investments Ltd’s plan? After all, you have said that it guaranteed delivery and that it was a great achievement within the first 100 days of devolution. Therefore, you placed great confidence on the proposal to deliver a world-class facility; in fact, so great was your confidence that you were prepared to abort the other exercise, which was led by your Department.

Mr Dodds:
The statement — and whatever interpretations you put on it are a matter for you — is very clear in the circumstances, and it is absolutely right not to commit more taxpayers’ money to a project that could turn out to be nugatory expenditure. No matter how you look at it, ultimately, the taxpayer is an important consideration. It is essential that we do not commit more money that could be nugatory and wasted.

My statement made it clear that in the prevailing circumstances we would not commit further expenditure. The issues that you mention are outside the planning process, but they are important and will be considered in due course. However, they are not matters for me at this stage.

The only decision that has been taken, if I may reiterate it, is not to commit further expenditure since the Minister of the Environment has decided that she is minded to proceed with the application from Seaport Ltd. Therefore it would not be a prudent use of taxpayers’ money to commit any further expenditure. That is a straightforward, sensible position. Assembly Members and the public would be the first to complain about nugatory or wasted expenditure, and rightly so.

The Chairperson:
You had the statement from the Minister of the Environment saying that she was minded to approve the planning application — which in itself is a novel approach, and members of this and other Committees will have to examine the precedent that that has created, among other matters. The Committee appreciates that if you were aware that a decision might be made on a planning application in one or two months’ time, you might decide — because such a decision might make a material difference — not to spend anything for the next month or two and put it on ice.

However, the impression that was given to the public was not that the other project was put on ice, but that it was dropped.

Mr Dodds:
I have to say, Chairman —

The Chairperson:
Please let me finish the point, Minister, as it relates to what we were told last week. The Committee had previously been briefed on the Department’s proposals and bids for the comprehensive spending review, and it was told that the visitor facility would be included in that bid. Last week, officials told the Committee that, on the basis of what had happened, that would no longer be the case.

Mr Dodds:
Perhaps Stephen Quinn could answer that question, because he was here last week. However, my statement is very clear; I made it clear when I was interviewed on television last week. Someone talked about dumping the project, and I said that I had heard all the talk and that my position was clear. My position flows inexorably and inevitably from the Minister of the Environment’s statement that she is minded to make her decision. It is a prudent position that safeguards the taxpayers’ and the public’s interests without prejudicing the outcome of the decision.

You can go into the details of who said what and what impressions were given. A great deal was said; unfortunately, most of it generates a great of heat but not much light. I hope that today we can shed a bit of light on the matter.

The Chairperson:
Will your Department bid in the comprehensive spending review to provide cover to fund a visitor facility at the Giant’s Causeway?

Mr Dodds:
As I understand it — and I have not changed any of them — the Department’s bids are just as they were.

The Chairperson:
Does that include cover for the visitor facility?

Mr Dodds:
Yes.

Mr Stephen Quinn (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment):
May I add a postscript about the evidence that we gave last week? The Chairperson referred to the fact that the term “abort” was suggested to us. At no stage could anything that I, or any of the other witnesses, said have been construed as accepting that term. I have reviewed the tape.

The Chairperson:
You took issue with most of the terms that you disliked.

Mr Quinn:
I have reviewed the tape since I gave my evidence, and nothing that any of the Department’s witnesses said accepted the term “abort”. We sought to ensure that our evidence rested clearly on the Minster’s statement of 10 September, which was specific about the decision: he would not authorise further expenditure on the project costs in the circumstances.

If you remember my evidence last week, if I used the word “circumstances” once, I must have used it 20 times. That was designed.

The Chairperson:
That is correct, but what about the comprehensive spending review?

Mr Quinn:
I made the point that a risk assessment would have to be done. I had already initiated a risk assessment before I came to the Committee.

The Chairperson:
Yes, you said that initially. I pointed out that, based on what the Minister said, the other project was gone and that it would seem strange to do a risk assessment from a budgetary point of view alone. You said that it was gone and that it would not be in the comprehensive spending review.

Mr Quinn:
I qualified that by saying that one might draw that as a logical conclusion, but that it required a risk assessment. In my evidence last week, I said that the risk assessment would have to take account of the fact that it was short of a notice of opinion. I said that there would be a notice of opinion and consultation on it and that the planning process would work its way through to a final determination.

The Chairperson:
I will want to return to some of those issues.

The Deputy Chairperson:
I thank the Minister for his attendance. Looking back to the start of devolution, when the Minister was first appointed, he came to the Committee and said that he would like to have a good working relationship with us and that he would confer and confide with the Committee on major decisions. That did not occur last week. In this instance, we have not had the good working relationship that the Minister promised. Is it normal for a Department to go to the Minister of the Environment or the planning authorities and ask, as it says in one of the letters, for an early determination when consultation has not taken place? It is good that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will soon be meeting with Moyle District Council and the National Trust. Moyle District Council and the National Trust are concerned that the publicly funded proposal will be rejected. There are issues that need to be addressed, and I do not believe that the matter has been weighed much.

Last week, we asked about the business plan. The Minister was able to pull the £14 million that was to be spent on the visitor centre at the Causeway from the comprehensive spending review. The Minister mentioned that £1·2 million had been spent to date on the project; I thought that a figure of £1·9 million was mentioned yesterday in the Chamber. Can he clarify that?

The fact that the process has been put on ice may cost the Department more money. The proposal from Seaport Investments Ltd is DETI’s preferred choice, yet the Department is only considering outline planning applications. It is wrong that no other details are being considered.

Mr Dodds:
A number of issues have been raised, and I am happy to deal with each of them. I am committed to good relations with the Committee, and I am sure that the Chairman will testify to that. I am happy to speak to the Committee about the matter today, at the first available opportunity.

As a Minister I take hundreds of decisions every month and dozens every week on a host of issues that I do not discuss directly with the Committee. If I discussed every decision with the Committee, it would never be out of session and I would never get anything done.

In this case, the decision was pretty straightforward. Yesterday in the Chamber, someone suggested that it must have been an easy decision. Protecting taxpayers’ money against wasted expenditure is an easy decision to take. Most members of the Committee, who were beginning to criticise the delay and the £1·2 million expenditure of the project, would criticise further expenditure in circumstances in which the expenditure was more likely to be nugatory and wasted. I am happy to defend my decision and will stand up for the taxpayers in all of this.

As regards the issue concerning the Minister of the Environment, for years the Government have been criticised for having a silo mentality. However, even under previous administrations, Departments have always communicated at official and ministerial levels on matters which impact on each other’s remits. If Departments had not been meeting and moving forward with projects such Giant’s Causeway and the Titantic signature project, it would have been a dereliction of duty. I declare openly that I want the Titanic signature project’s planning permission to be decided as quickly as possible — I hope that no one will be criticising me for that. Northern Ireland needs decisions taken, and I want those decisions taken, and taken quickly. The Planning Service has been criticised for taking inordinately long times to make decisions.

With regard to figure of £1∙2 million; that is the amount that has been spent to date, and it is likely that approximately £1 million more, although it is difficult to say for definite, will be required to take the project to contract stage.

The Chairperson: 
I would like to clarify what Mr Maskey said about how he thought the figure £1∙9 million had been mentioned in the Chamber: it was actually £1∙192 million.

Mr Dodds: 
Yes, the figure was £1∙2 million. Yesterday, in the Chamber, I said that a further £1 million would be needed to take the project to contract stage, and that that sum of money would prevent further expenditure being incurred in the future.

Mr P Maskey:
As regards consultation and working relations within the Committee, what we are talking about is a signature project — it is not an off-the-cuff decision that anyone can take. The Minister could have taken the Committee’s views on board prior to making his decision.

Mr Dodds: 
I am happy to take everyone’s views on board. However, the only issue before me was the simple, straightforward question of whether to commit to further expenditure. On that basis, it does not require much investigation, consideration or consultation to know what the best decision is for the taxpayers of Northern Ireland in the present circumstances. If those circumstances change, the decision will be reviewed.

Mr Cree:
Although I agree with the Minister as regards making decisions quickly, making them over the period of a weekend is very quick indeed. I welcome clarification of the Minister’s statement of 10 September, which stated the Department would not be proceeding further in the circumstances. Media speculation has now been confirmed this afternoon in that that the decision has been put on hold.

In evidence given to the Committee last week, the permament secretary stated that he had written to the DOE regarding the outstanding matter of Mr Sweeney’s planning application. Was that action taken on the direction of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment? If so, why was the subsequent decision taken; when officials had clearly indicated to the Committee, before the summer recess, that the publicly-funded project was budgeted for and was proceeding? That is my first question.

Secondly, why was the Minister of the Environment’s recent decision to approve — or that she was minded to approve — Mr Sweeney’s application not preceded by discussion with the other stakeholders in the publicly-funded project? Why were those stakeholders, who have been in partnership with DETI for some time, informed of the U-turn through a press release?

Mr Dodds: 
In answer to the first question, the Minister of the Environment’s decision-making process is something that she would have to comment on. If the question refers to my decision, then it is exactly the same question asked by Mr Maskey, which I have just answered.

The Chairperson: 
The question is that if it were known that a decision by the DOE was imminent, and was going to make such a material difference to what DETI was doing, why, during all of that time, were the stakeholders not told?

Mr Dodds: 
I will refer that question to Mr McGarrity, who was dealing with the matter at the time.

Mr McGarrity: 
The Seaport planning application had been in the system for some time, and correspondence between DETI and the DOE was on the basis that we anticipated that a decision on the planning application was due shortly. That was something that the board was looking at.

All the stakeholders recognised that our proposal was to build a world-class visitors’ centre. It was always recognised that the Seaport application existed and was on the books. We were aware of that when direct rule Ministers embarked on the initiative in 2003, and we proceeded on that basis. We did not know what the likely outcome of that decision would be, and that is why we progressed in June or July to brief the Committee. We continued to progress on issues around car parking, value for money considerations and how we would manage the increase of 50% from £14 million to £21 million. We progressed on the basis that there would be another application, but we did not know what that application was or what the determination would be.

Mr Quinn:
In March 2007, during direct rule, I wrote to the Department of the Environment but it was not under ministerial instruction. I did it because I was prompted by accounting officer concerns about value for money. I then wrote to the Department on 1 August. I do not recall whether I had an instruction or endorsement from the Minister, but it was the same letter written from the same perspective. It was written in the light of the meeting that Ministers held in June, so it went with the flow of that. There were concerns about the implications of spending more on professional fees, so I wrote to the Department on an accounting officer point on 1 August.

Mr Cree:
Why were your partners in the publicly funded project, — for example, the council — not informed?

Mr Dodds:
I have dealt with that point. Mr Cree mentioned that it was a quick decision, which was taken over a weekend. I outlined the timeline because those matters were considered and dealt with over a long time. Someone said that the decision has come out of the blue, but it has not: it has been followed up closely over time. A fortnight ago, the criticism was focused on the delay, so now at least we are moving the issue along. As the member has acknowledged, we must address the need to get things done when it comes to planning and delivery of projects.

On the subject of consultation, I will ensure that all those matters will be discussed in future meetings. With regard to the decision, I do not think that it required consultation with the Committee, because it was a straightforward, direct, ministerial decision concerning incurring further expenditure in the circumstances that prevailed. Anyone in a similar situation who had not taken the same decision would have been rightly criticised by those who hold Ministers to account in another Committee and are quick to point out when taxpayers’ money is spent for no good reason.

The Chairperson:
Even for a project that you are still bidding for?

Mr Dodds:
I do not understand the logic of that comment, because the work is still there; it is still in existence. To continue to work up a project and to carry it forward on the basis that it turns out that it is not needed would open us up to the criticism that we have encouraged expenditure for nothing. I did not think that you, as a former Minister of Finance and Personnel, would encourage that.

The Chairperson:
I would not encourage that. It seems that your decision is being recouched.

Mr Dodds:
It is not being recouched. I reject that entirely. I made my position clear, and if people had read the statement clearly and followed what we said, and not what people interpret it to be, they would be in no doubt about our position.

The Chairperson:
Both your statement and your contribution in the debate and the contributions of other Ministers in the debates and elsewhere very much presented that as being a wasteful public-sector project, dropped and abandoned for a viable private-sector project. Those are the terms in which it has consistently been presented.

Mr Dodds:
Of course there is concern.

The Chairperson:
The Committee would find it entirely valid to put certain interim expenditures on hold when a planning decision is coming that could make a material difference. However, there is a difference between those interim expenditures going on hold over the next weeks and months and claiming that the taxpayer has been saved £21 million, the claim that you, and other Ministers, are making.

Mr Dodds:
What we are criticising is the fact that involvement had to be from the public sector with no involvement from the private sector under any circumstances. If there was a private-sector development, on which the stakeholders agreed, that delivered protection for the world heritage site, provided world-class facilities, got the job done as quickly as possible and gave value for money, that would be a win-win situation for everyone. I have not made a secret of that view.

When the plans for the Causeway were announced a lot of people insisted that the contract should not go to the private sector. However, some of us pointed out that £21 million of public money could be saved and could be spent in other areas where there is market failure and where public expenditure is required — on education or health, on other tourist projects, or in other areas that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment could be involved in — and achieve the objectives at the same time. Some people take the view that the public sector is good and should do everything and that the private sector is bad and should not be involved.

The Chairperson:
The Committee has not said that.

Mr Dodds:
The Committee may not have, but some members have, as have colleagues of those members.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment bid £32·5 million worth of public money on the Titanic signature project, another iconic tourist destination — not the natural landscape of the Causeway, but another major tourist attraction for the future — and the argument put to me then was that the Department should not be spending all that public money but raising more from the private sector, which is already putting £32·5 million into that project. At that time the criticism was of any public money being spent. Not one Committee member said that the Department should go to the Executive for the whole £65 million instead of trying to raise £32·5 million from the private sector, and rightly so, because if we can deliver while meeting all the criteria of value for money, getting the job done quickly, world-class facilities and taking care of the environmental considerations, etc, then that makes common sense.

The Chairperson:
Those latter points open up a whole area of questions too.

Mr Hamilton:
I thank the Minister for his evidence and share his sense of frustration on several points, not least that after years of feet-dragging on this, there are now people criticising decisions because they were made in a short space of time. That is quite ironic.

I am also frustrated over the criticism of a potential waste of £1·5 million when possibly more than £20 million has been saved by the course that the Minister and his colleagues have embarked on. I also share his frustration over the criticism of the private sector as if the private sector cannot deliver a project like this.

My understanding is that the Seaport investment proposal is for privately-owned land.

To listen to some people one would think that the Government were handing the Giant’s Causeway over to private developers. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the proposed private visitor centre development is not unique and that there are facilities at sites throughout the world similar to those proposed for the Giant’s Causeway? Will he also assure the Committee that his Department will do all in its remit to ensure the quality of this private facility — if it is successful — and that it is carried out to the standard required for a world heritage site?

Mr Dodds:
I am grateful to the member for some of those comments. He talks about frustration, and it is easy to become frustrated in this job, since, as public representatives, we want to get things done. We share a common objective — to see an end to the situation at the Causeway, which has dragged on for too long. The facilities for visitors at the Giant’s Causeway are third-rate, and the finger has been pointed in many directions on why that has been the case for so long. I do not want to go into that, because most of the questions refer to what happened before I became Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Seaport (NI) Ltd and its ownership of land close to the Giant’s Causeway were mentioned; therefore that company would be involved even if a public sector project were undertaken, because there would be discussions on issues such as access. It would have been better if Moyle District Council and the National Trust, for instance, could agree a way forward. I understand that previous Ministers got involved in this issue because they were invited to do so by the council, because people could see no other way forward. Some issues were proving intractable.

The Government were, and remain, a deliverer of last resort. If a project can deliver value for money, be delivered quickly and meet the criteria, it must be considered. I get frustrated when people say that they want to deliver projects in education, health or tourism, without realising that such projects will affect public expenditure. Our aim is to get the best value for money.

Mr Hamilton:
I am sure that the Minister is aware that another potential private developer has come out of the woodwork and said that he will build a facility at the Giant’s Causeway for free. It begs the question: where will he get the money? Is Milton Friedman wrong? Is there such a thing as a free lunch? What is the Minister’s view on the other private proposal?

Mr Dodds:
I have not taken a view on it, although I have seen reports of it in the newspapers; in fact, one newspaper gave it prominent billing. I do not think that the developer has even submitted a planning application, although if he has it will go to the Department of the Environment. I do not know whether there is any substance to the report or whether it is pure speculation. However, it is interesting that another private developer has come forward with ideas — if the reports are correct. I am all for listening to ideas; if people want to come forward with them, so be it. However, this latest one, which some people did not dismiss out of hand — and that is a matter for them — comes with strings attached. People will have to discuss it, but, as I understand it, it includes provision for a hotel and housing. I do not know if that counts as free.

The Chairperson:
That is a speculative area for the Committee.

Mr Newton:
I thank the Minister for attending the meeting. The Committee recognises the importance of tourism and its potential for the Northern Ireland economy and welcomes the Minister’s emphasis on the need to protect public expenditure and his recognition of the taxpayers’ desire for value for money — even in the provision of world-class, iconic facilities.

In the past, we tried to provide iconic tourism facilities through public sector expenditure: Navan Fort comes to mind. Can the Minister confirm that that was purely public sector expenditure, can he give the Committee some idea of the total cost involved, and can he tell us what state that project is in at the moment?

Mr Dodds:
I do not know whether my officials can add anything, but I have not come across the details of the Navan Fort project. I am not sure whether it is in the remit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment; my officials indicate that it is not. That information could be provided to Mr Newton by the appropriate Department. However, Mr Newton’s question illustrates the issues surrounding those projects, such as delivery and viability in the long run. It is a fair point, but I cannot provide the answers today.

The Chairperson:
I know that the Minister’s time is limited.

Ms J McCann:
The Minister said earlier that the centre would cost £21 million of taxpayers’ money and that that was not the way to go. I bring my children regularly to such sites and would spend quite a lot of money in a visitors’ centre. Given that 500,000 visitors will go through the centre each year, the money that they spend would recoup an investment of £21 million, whether private or public. Would it not therefore be better for the profits from the site to go back into the public purse rather than into the pockets of private developers?

Mr Dodds:
As tourism Minister, I am always pleased to hear of people visiting sites and spending plenty of money at them. You are exactly the type of person who needs to visit those centres more often.

It is sensible for the various stakeholders involved to meet to discuss mutually beneficial operations as well as the provision of services. I have no doubt that that will be one of the main issues to be discussed between the stakeholders and the developer.

Mr McFarland:
I thank the Minister for attending. The Committee is fairly confused. Last week, it was briefed that the project had been aborted; now the Minister tells us that it is on hold. Those are two different positions. Last week, we were told that the project was no longer part of the comprehensive spending review — I asked the question — yet today we are told that the project is still there and being bid for and on hold.

Hansard contains a plethora of evidence of Ian Paisley Jnr, MLA for North Antrim, lobbying and leading delegations to Ministers and asking questions for Mr Sweeney, his party colleague, back in 2001 and 2002.

In 2003, after the Assembly was suspended, and for unknown reasons, the direct rule Ministers decided to park the Seaport Investments Ltd application, under article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, and start a brand new public-sector led project, which resulted in the worldwide competition for architects to submit designs. The Minister responsible for planning could have signed off on the Seaport Investments Ltd application at that stage, as the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment did a fortnight ago. For some reason, he did not, and a brand new public project was started in parallel. Last week, Stephen Quinn told us that that was partly because the issue was tied up in such a bundle of knots that it could not be unravelled.

My first of four questions is probably for Mrs Foster to answer. In the intervening four years up to Friday-week ago, what changed to unravel that knot, resulting in a complete change of tack?

Will your’s and Mrs Foster’s decision free up £21 million in your Department for the CSR, as I was told that it would? I asked where that money would go and was assured that it would go back to the Department of Finance and Personnel, Mr Robinson’s bailiwick, —

Mr Dodds:
It will go back into the —

Mr McFarland:
Yes, but, if not the CSR, the £21 million that was originally for this project should be available for others.

Secondly, can you assure the Committee that there was no discussion between you, Mr Paisley, Mrs Foster, Mr Robinson or your advisers on how to deal with this? Although you have already clarified the point, I wish to have it on the record that, prior to taking those decisions, there was no discussion on this in the Democratic Unionist Party.

At the time of the first proposal in 2001-02, the word on the grapevine and in the press was that a project to put a hotel and golf course on the same site accompanied the bid from Seaport Investments Ltd. I questioned that last week and was told that the Department would come back to me here. Were there any associated deals? The new deal mentions a hotel alongside the visitor centre. Was there anything else in the mix as part of that project?

The Chairperson:
To avoid confusion, when you refer to a new deal, is that the one that has been mentioned by the media?

Mr McFarland:
Yes, the deal that has been discussed by the media talks of building hotels.

Finally, Stephen Quinn briefed us that he wrote a letter in March. At that stage, the Department was tick-tacking back and forth between the permanent secretaries on the issue. What did the letter say? The Committee was briefed by both NITB and DETI, but, even though both parties spoke of the public-sector project at length, I do not recall any doubt that it was proceeding. There was no suggestion that that project might be in question because it had been referred back to the Planning Service under article 31 of the Planning ( Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and that the Department might not be minded to agree to it. There was no mention of that— absolute silence. If that was going on in the background, one would have thought that the Minister might have felt a duty to warn the Committee and, equally, his Department’s colleagues involved in the public-sector bid.

No doubt we will hear from them later, but is fairly clear from your departmental colleagues’ comments in the press that they were totally unsighted on any tic-tacking concerning Seaport Investments Ltd proposal’s coming out of the woodwork. If one looks at the statements that your colleagues have released in the past few days, they were clearly as surprised as we were that the private-sector proposal suddenly came on to the pitch.

I appreciate that several projects are ongoing, but the visitor centre is a signature project, and it worries me greatly when you say, as you have said previously, that you do not mind whether it is a private developer who builds the visitor centre as long as the project goes ahead. You have not seen a business plan from the private developer, and we have no idea whether certain aspects of the bid that Mrs Foster has agreed to are viable. Are you not curious to keep the public-sector bid firmly on the table until it is certain that the other bid, for which the Department of the Environment is minded to approve a planning application, can get under way? That seems a very odd way in which to do business.

The Chairperson: 
I appreciate that you have notified the Committee, Minister, that you are constrained in what you can discuss.

Mr Dodds:
Yes, but I will take a moment to answer those points. The Member talked about confusion, and his question was a classic illustration of confusion. He raised a number of issues of substance. However, the first falls solely within the Department of the Environment’s remit, so I cannot comment on it — it is a matter for the Planning Service.

On his point about discussion with colleagues, nobody has made representations to me on the project — either for or against. Nobody has written to me or contacted me about it.

Mr McFarland: 
Your party has never discussed the issue, despite its involving four key members?

Mr Dodds: 
Nobody has spoken, or made representations, to me on the issue. The Member talked about this proposal’s coming out of the blue. He said that he was not aware of it, yet he would have been had he read the first-day brief that was provided for the Committee. All factors — including value-for-money issues — were contained in paragraph 4.2 of section B of that brief, which was also made available publicly. The Committee requested a brief, and the Department made known in that brief all current issues that affected it, including the DETI proposal for the visitor centre.

The Chairperson: 
The Committee is still due to receive a full briefing.

Mr Dodds:
Nevertheless, information on all current issues was to be found in the first-day brief. I will ask the permanent secretary to comment.

The new deal of which the Member spoke illustrates the confusion that exists, not least in his mind. His point is based on speculation that the private developer’s plan contains an hotel. As I understand it, no application to build an hotel has been linked to that plan, but, again, that is a matter for the planners.

I know that this can sometimes happen in politics, but, instead of jumping to conclusions based on considerations other than the facts, it would be useful if people were to read and listen carefully to what is said. Then there would be no confusion.

Mr McFarland: 
Chairman, I want to check whether the Minister understands the point that you made earlier. Minister, we have set a precedent. This is a landmark project that has been in the pipeline for years, yet the moment that the Planning Service is minded to approve an application, we abandon it.

Mr Dodds:
You may be abandoning the project, but I am not.

Mr McFarland: 
It was said last week that the project was being aborted. I am curious as to why we are not fighting more strongly with our colleagues and partners for our landmark project. We appear to be accepting that the visitor centre will be built by a private developer. The downside of setting that precedent is that, from now on, any time that another Department is chasing an issue, should the Planning Service decide to do something different, everything will stop. That is a weird way in which to govern.

Mr Dodds:
The Member talked about confusion, but I fear that our collective best efforts to try to shed light on the issue will be wasted on him.

Contrary to what the member said, there is no issue. I have already outlined the permanent secretary’s position on aborting or abandoning the project. It is because I am absolutely determined to see something done at the Causeway that we hope to make progress. That is why we pressed the Department of the Environment to move on planning for the signature project, which is a major venture. It is vital that we progress. I do not want further delay; I want action. I want the value-for-money considerations to be taken on board. I want the Causeway’s status to be preserved, and the Department of the Environment will ensure that it is. The Causeway will remain in public ownership, about which there has also been much confusion.

As I said previously, our deliberations have a common purpose. I hope that today we have been able to clarify some of the issues and clear up any confusion. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that when the member talks about abandoning or aborting the project, that is not what the permanent secretary said last week. It is certainly not what I said, and it is not what we are saying here today.

The Chairperson:
Minister, I assure you that that is how members of the Committee interpreted what was said last week, not only by the officials who appeared before the Committee, but also from what was said during the debate and from all the other utterances from you and your ministerial colleagues, who advertised the project as a great example of joined-up Government. I observed last week that some of us see more of a suggestion of lined-up Government.

You are under time constraints, Minister, and we do not want to detain you too long, but there are further issues that we want to examine. The officials have helpfully provided us with further correspondence that clarified the datelines on the correspondence between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I understand that today’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’ mentions an internal DETI memo. That may be how the system feeds back on letters that have been sent between Departments. We will want to question officials further about some of those internal communications in the Department.

I know that you dispute my suggestion that your decision is couched in different terms today, but I take some comfort from it. However, last week, not only the Committee but everyone thought that one proposal, and one proposal only, was going forward, and the other was being dropped. Now you seem to be telling us that the public-sector proposal may still possibly be an option. However, following the planning Minister’s decision, the private-sector application is clearly in pole position. There is a difference between those two scenarios.

Will you clarify that there will be a bid under the CSR to cover the cost of the facility? If that bid is successful, will the money be there purely as a banker for the public-sector project, or will it be available to the private-sector developer project should he call on the Government?

Mr Dodds:
However members’ were confused, the position has always been that in the circumstances that were prevalent as a result of the Minister of the Environment’s statement last week, it was obvious that one could not proceed to authorise further potentially nugatory expenditure.

When people were jumping up and down and saying that a private-sector developer should not be involved, we made the point that a private-sector project could turn out to be the optimum value-for-money solution. By saving £21 million of taxpayers’ money, such a project could benefit taxpayers. It could deliver a centre with world-class facilities.

I will reiterate what the permanent secretary said. You heard what he said last week, and, once again, he did not indicate that the project had been aborted.

I make no apology for defending the view that a private-sector developer can deliver something that will benefit us all, provided that all the criteria are met. There is no change to our position on the bid: it is still there; it has not been taken out; and we have to await developments. It will depend on the outcome of this process. As part of that, the Minister of the Environment has indicated that she wants to see communication and dialogue between the various stakeholders. That is what should happen, and I hope it will happen. Some of the issues raised today can be sorted out with dialogue, and then we can decide where we go from there.

The Chairperson:
Why is dialogue between the stakeholders an issue for the Minister of the Environment?

Mr Dodds:
It is not just a matter for that Minister; it is a matter for all of us.

The Chairperson:
You are in charge of policy.

Mr Dodds:
Do not get me wrong; she has said that she is minded to take this decision, but she wants to encourage discussion among the stakeholders. I want to see discussion among them, not just about the planning issues, but about the other issues that were raised in response to the member’s question about operational issues and service delivery. They all need to be discussed.

The Chairman:
Minister, are you aware of other decisions, relevant to other projects of your Department and on which the Minister of the Environment might be expressing her mind, that would make a material difference to anything that the Committee has previously been briefed on?

Mr Dodds:
As I told you, I want to see decisions taken as quickly as possible. I have already met the Minister of the Environment on energy matters and the Titanic signature project. I want that decided as quickly as possible. We are in a situation now in which devolved Ministers are getting decisions taken and making progress. That is a better than under direct rule, when, with due respect to direct rule Ministers, we often had paralysis, impasse and no decisions taken. We need to have these decisions taken in accordance with value for money for the taxpayer. That is key.

The Chairman:
Please clarify the point about the bid you are submitting for the visitor facility at the Giant’s Causeway. If that bid is successful, will that money be available only to the project in which DETI and the Tourist Board have been leading, or will the money be available to the private-sector bid?

Mr Dodds:
That will be a matter for discussion between the DFP and my Department. Any money that has been allocated for any project in which there has been a change in circumstances becomes a matter for discussion between that Department and the DFP.

The Chairman:
You are the Minister who is bidding for the money, and you have already indicated that there is one provider who is in pole position. Is that provider eligible to receive some of that money from your successful bid?

Mr Dodds:
Sorry. I understand now what you are getting at.

My view — and I said this in the House yesterday — is that the Government should only become involved in spending public money on this sort of thing when there is market failure. It would take a lot to convince me that, in circumstances in which a private developer was interested, the situation would merit public expenditure. Just to clarify that: if money is earmarked for a project that is not then needed, it can be reallocated to other purposes.

The Chairman:
Or, if someone else applied for it, he could get it?

Mr Dodds:
I do not want to speculate. It would be used for other purposes within the Department. Any allocation to my Department or any other Department that is not spent on a particular purpose can go towards other purposes or may be surrendered back to the centre as part of the monitoring rounds if it is not required.

The Chairman:
Could it be the case with the Giant’s Causeway, as you mentioned with the Titanic Quarter, that both private-sector and public-sector money could be involved?

Mr Dodds:
As far as I am concerned, if there is market failure here, it will take a lot to convince me that public expenditure is required for that project.

The Chairperson:
OK, Minister. We will be back in touch with your officials, and possibly with you, in relation to other matters.

Mr Dodds:
I am always happy to come along to the Committee and help in any way that I can. My officials will be available at any time, and we will be as open with the Committee as we possibly can with regard to documentation, within the constraints that apply.

The Chairperson:
We will take you up on that.

Mr Dodds:
Thank you.

The Chairperson:
Members, rather than discussing what we have just heard from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and his officials, we shall proceed to a further briefing on the Giant’s Causeway issue, which will be presented by the key public sector stakeholders.

The National Trust will be represented by its Northern Ireland Director, Hilary McGrady, and Graham Thompson, the project director at the Giant’s Causeway. Moyle District Council will be represented by its chief executive, Richard Lewis; its head of tourism and leisure, Kevin McGarry; and its vice-chairperson, Helen Harding, who is standing in for the council’s chairperson, Madeline Black.

It might be better to allow the two presentations — of up to 10 minutes duration each — to take place one after the other, and have an open question session, rather than having separate presentations and questions, if the witnesses are comfortable with that.

Councillor Helen Harding (Moyle District Council):
I wish to thank you, Chairperson, and the Committee, for this opportunity to express the council’s views and concerns over recent developments regarding the Giant’s Causeway. Moyle District Council shares the frustration and disappointment of many others that, after seven years, we still do not have a visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway that is appropriate for the iconic status of the world heritage site. I can assure the Committee that, contrary to some reports, this is not for the want of trying by the council.

In order to gain an appreciation of where we are today, it is necessary to look back at the recent history of visitor facilities at the Giant’s Causeway. The previous visitors’ centre was built by the council, and opened in 1986. At that time there was no private sector interest or involvement, and only the council was prepared to take the risk and invest in a facility at a time when, generally, heritage centres did not tend to make money.

The centre subsequently proved to be hugely successful to the point where we now seem to be the victim of our own success. Even before the disastrous fire of April 2000, it was recognised that the previous building was inadequate to meet the needs of the ever-increasing number of visitors. When the visitors’ centre burned down, it was viewed as an opportunity to build something bigger and better.

Moyle District Council is, however, the smallest of Northern Ireland’s 26 councils, with a population of just over 16,000, and only limited resources to match. The council was not, therefore, in a position to provide what was needed without outside help. Insurance money would only replace like for like, which, everybody agrees, would not have been satisfactory.

Although the council received much sympathy and offers of support from the Government immediately after the fire, it soon became clear that that was not unconditional, and the council was steered towards the involvement of other parties in the redevelopment of the centre.

Various attempts to find a solution ensued over the next year and a half, one of which resulted in the submission of competing proposals by Seaports Investments Ltd and the National Trust. The weight of public opinion at that time was strongly against any privatisation of the visitor facilities, and the council had considerable difficulty in finding an acceptable way forward. It was at that stage that the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee intervened and offered to try to broker a solution by means of facilitating a joint proposal from the trust and Seaport Investments Ltd. Unfortunately, those efforts reached an impasse in September 2002. By that stage, the council had become extremely frustrated at the lack of progress and had already written to the Environment Minister seeking Government intervention, but to no avail.

By late September 2002, with no solution in sight, the council decided to call time and rebuild the centre with the limited insurance monies available. It was only after the council had taken that decision and architectural consultants had been appointed, that the Government finally intervened. In a joint ministerial statement of 14 April 2003, Angela Smith and Ian Pearson announced that DETI would henceforth be taking the project forward by means of an international competition. The council welcomed that development and immediately abandoned its own plans for the centre. The council readily agreed to work together with DETI, the Tourist Board and the National Trust, and since that date, it has contributed fully to the process.

The council’s commitment is illustrated by the fact that it readily agreed to make all of its lands available for the new centre. In September 2005, it entered into a formal lease agreement with the newly formed Tourist Board-led company, the Giant’s Causeway Visitor Facilities Ltd. Although progress has been relatively slow, the council fully understood the importance of getting it right and that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to provide world-class facilities at this iconic site. It was therefore content while progress was being made, albeit slowly.

However, in more recent months the council has become increasingly concerned at the delay, especially in the submission of the planning application. In June of this year, the council wrote to the Minister, Nigel Dodds, urging him to take the project forward and to submit an application without further delay. We were then all astonished last week to hear the two announcements of the 10 September effectively ending the DETI project. Given the advanced stage of the project, the council finds it difficult to understand why all of the efforts of the last four years have been totally discarded at the last hurdle, without any warning or consultation.

The council does not believe that those latest developments will move the project forward. On the contrary, with a possible threat to the world-heritage status of the causeway, and the possibility of legal challenge, the project may be further delayed well into the future. The council feels that the current situation whereby only one proposal is left on the table is totally unacceptable. Such an important facility for a site of national importance needs to be provided and operated in the public interest. It is essential that any new visitor facilities integrate with the management of the whole site, embracing the world-heritage site management plan, and that any financial returns should be reinvested for the benefit of the Causeway and the wider area.

At a specially convened meeting last Friday, the council confirmed its strongly held view that the new visitor facility should remain in public ownership, and it now calls on the DETI Minister to continue with the Department’s proposals, which have already been agreed by the key stakeholders.

Chairperson, I thank you and the Committee for listening to me. I hope that I have adequately expressed the council’s views on this extremely important matter. We will be happy to answer any of the members’ questions.

The Chairperson:
Thank you, Helen. Hilary McGrady from the National Trust will now give a presentation.

Ms Hilary McGrady (The National Trust):
The National Trust also welcomes this opportunity to place clearly on record a number of key points on the future of Northern Ireland’s only world-heritage site, and our most important visitor attraction. It is worth stating at the outset that the National Trust’s role is to protect, preserve and provide; to protect our most important historical sites and, in this case, our only world heritage site; to preserve the sites and take care of maintenance and upkeep; and, finally, to provide access through world-class facilities and visitor experiences.

In that context, throughout the whole process relating to the Causeway, the National Trust was, and remains, committed to achieving the following key objectives: that the status of the world heritage site and its setting is fully protected in line with UNESCO’s recommendations; that world-class visitor facilities are put in place, in keeping with its world heritage site status; that there is clear value for money for any public investment; and that a timely solution is found and implemented.

We are encouraged to see that those objectives were reflected in Minister Dodds’s statement in a recent Assembly debate. Therefore, we are optimistic that the right solution for the Giant’s Causeway can be still be achieved. My colleague from Moyle District Council has already provided an accurate summary of the background to the matter, and we concur entirely with that account.

In 2002, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment took the lead in a project to deliver agreed world-class visitor facilities at the Giant’s Causeway. We worked in a positive way with the Department on that project and reached agreement in 2005, at which time Giant’s Causeway Visitor Facilities Limited was established. Since then, the project has been led by the Department.

Through a detailed process, Government followed the approach proposed by UNESCO. They ran an international design competition that gave rise to very high-quality design which also met the standards set out by UNESCO. They oversaw the development of an integrated management plan for the site and the surrounding area that met all of the stakeholders’ needs. They developed a tourism strategy to utilise the potential of the Giant’s Causeway as a key component in Northern Ireland’s tourism offer. We welcome that progress.

In recent days, some comments have been made that have served to confuse the situation. Therefore, in the interests of clarity, I will return to the four key points set out in the Minister’s statement in the Assembly last week. The first of those points was that the status of the world heritage site and its setting is fully protected in line with the recommendations of UNESCO.

In their four-day visit to Northern Ireland in 2003, UNESCO examined all of the issues relating to the Giant’s Causeway. The report sets clear conditions for the establishment and maintenance of the world heritage status. I will make copies of that report available to Committee members. Members will note that the report recommends

“establishment of a small visitor centre at the entrance of the site (at the current location without extension)”

The report refers to “appropriate infrastructure upgrading” and recommends that

“The current size of the structure and footprint should not be exceeded.”

The Minister’s second point was that world-class visitor facilities are put in place and are in keeping with world heritage site status. The National Trust is recognised internationally for success in operating world-class visitor attractions. Each year, more than 14 million visitors are attracted to 300 National Trust properties across the UK, including some of the most important natural sites. Profits in excess of £18 million are generated from our facilities at those sites. That makes us a leading operator of visitor facilities in the country, and one of the leaders in the world.

The National Trust can make available the experience and the expertise and — working with relevant Ministers and Moyle District Council — we can play our part in delivering world-class facilities at the Giant’s Causeway. However, it is not just about delivering facilities. One hundred per cent of the revenue generated by the National Trust at the Giant’s Causeway is re-invested in the maintenance and safety of the site. In addition, the National Trust adds further investment of its own resources. No other option can provide the dual approach of preservation and provision to the level at which the National Trust and Moyle District Council can. If the world-class visitor attraction that we all seek is managed through current partnership, additional funds will be available to invest in the Giant’s Causeway.

The Minister’s third point was that clear value for money for any public investment should be maintained. The National Trust fully supports that objective. Again, there is considerable opportunity to find a suitable way forward. The Giant’s Causeway should be a public asset. We are certain that it will be possible to protect the world heritage site status, create a world-class visitors’ centre and, at the same time, fully integrate the Giant’s Causeway into a successful tourism offer for Northern Ireland.

The National Trust has always sought to work with the authorities to make our contribution to ensuring that that key asset is available for public good, and that we are seen to continue to do so. To achieve that, we need to ensure a close and ongoing working relationship with the local council, the Ministers and their officials, and the National Trust. Together we can ensure that the Giant’s Causeway is maintained as a safe and memorable experience for future generations, and that it plays its part in a tourism experience for everyone.

The last of the four recommendations is that a timely solution is found and implemented. There is little doubt that the process has been frustrating for everyone. However, many of the elements for solution are in place. The work towards integrated management of the site, the holding of the international design competition, the tourism, and the environmental strategies have all contributed to finding a way forward.

Now that the Minister has set out his four conditions, we should have an opportunity to make specific proposals to ensure that those conditions are met. The National Trust welcomes the new impetus behind the process, which we have been calling for some time.

Together, we can work towards the outcomes that will show Northern Ireland’s most important asset to its fullest. For our part, as owners of the Giant’s Causeway, we want to continue to invest in its upkeep, and to work with the authorities to make sure that the investment secures a satisfactory long-term future. We are asking the Minister to ensure that the conditions are in place for that to be achieved.

Once again, I thank the members of the Committee for the opportunity to make our position clear, and I am happy to answer their questions.

Mr P Maskey: 
Thank you for your presentation, which was very worthwhile. Do you believe that a decision to give the project to a private developer would have a detrimental effect on the world heritage status of the Giant’s Causeway? If the site goes to a private developer, who will deal with its upkeep? That question needs to be addressed. For example, if there is damage done who will repair it, and who will cover the cost? Have those questions already been asked?

Ms McGrady:
I am not in a position to comment directly on the other proposal. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has made it clear that they require a world-class visitor facility that will not undermine the world heritage site status. The National Trust believes that the solution on the table, that was led by the Department, and worked on with the stakeholders, delivers on that objective.

Mr McFarland:
The Committee has had a number of briefings on the project, and it has been said that this project was not ready to go, specifically, that there was no planning application submitted and there were delays and other issues — for example, car parking had not been sorted out, which was a complicated issue — and, given the overall circumstances, the other application was put forward.

What is the main problem? Aside from the financial issue, after three or four years, why is the project not ready to go with planning permission?

Mr Graham Thompson (The National Trust):
It is straightforward, Mr McFarland. All the stakeholders have worked together closely, but the project team was only appointed in June 2006 so the development of the design to be submitted was started at that time. That is only one year ago, not seven years ago. Since then, a lot of the work has been undertaken by all of the key stakeholders and the relevant parties, to the extent that the application was almost ready for submission. However, the complicated issue of parking at the site had to be sorted out first. That is the one issue that is preventing the planning application from being submitted.

Mr McFarland:
What is the parking issue? Could you explain that?

Mr Richard Lewis (Moyle District Council):
The understanding of Moyle District Council, along with the National Trust, is that there is only one outstanding issue — car parking. In order to meet planning requirements, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment tried to secure 400 car-parking spaces for the facility at the Giant’s Causeway. As it was not possible to achieve that on site, the Department spent a lot of time looking at off-site car parks, particularly in Bushmills, and was hoping to speak to primary schools and to other landholders, including Moyle District Council.

The Department had come to the conclusion, based on discussions with officials, that there was only one alternative, which was to use the council’s coach park in Bushmills. The council was expecting a formal request from the Department to make the coach park available as an off-site car park. That formal approach never came.

Mr McFarland:
Are you saying that if that had been done the project would have been ready to go for planning permission?

Ms McGrady:
That is our understanding. There may be other options that are worth exploring, which we would like the opportunity to discuss.

Mr McFarland:
When the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was here, there was a suggestion that he was surprised that you were surprised about that. After several briefings, the Committee was certainly surprised that that was the situation.

Having read various comments that appeared in the papers, I understand that you were surprised by the statement. It has been suggested today, however, that you should not have been surprised because discussions had been ongoing for some time on the Planning Service’s consideration of the other bid. Can the Committee be certain that the National Trust did not envisage the statement that was made a fortnight ago?

Ms McGrady:
The National Trust was extremely surprised by the announcement. Members may have seen the look on my face on television. The trust was concerned. It had sent a letter to the Department as far back as May to ask for a meeting to discuss progress. It was unsuccessful in securing that meeting. We heard through the grapevine that the decision to approve the other application was with Minister Foster. However, the trust was not contacted directly by anyone.

Mr Lewis:
The situation was the same for Moyle District Council: we had no inkling of the decision that was announced on 10 September. As far as we were concerned, the council was to progress with the project on which we have worked with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for the past four years. As Councillor Harding has pointed out, we were becoming concerned about the lack of a decision and, in particular, about a question for written answer that was dated 1 June 2007, which referred to a private-sector application. Following that, the council wrote to the Minister to urge him to take the planning application forward as quickly as possible.

Mr Newton:
I thank the National Trust and Moyle District Council for being here.

Councillor Harding commented that Moyle District Council had taken a risk, which, under the circumstances, I can understand. I believe that she described the current state of the project as “highly successful”. Does the project contribute to the public purse or is there a deficit?

The councillor also commented on the possibility of a negative effect on the world heritage site if the potential private-sector project is developed. Can the council elaborate on that?

Hilary McGrady made four strong points on behalf of the National Trust: that the Giant’s Causeway is a world heritage site that must be protected and that UNESCO should be involved in the project; that the trust recognises the need for world-class facilities at the causeway; that there should be value for money when providing those facilities, and that there should be a timely solution to the matter.

Having listened to Ms McGrady’s comments, it seems to me that she welcomes the clarity that Minister Dodds brought to the matter in his comments to the Committee earlier. It appears that the National Trust is primarily interested in the details of the project and the potential involvement of a private developer, rather than the concept of the project as it stands. If I have misunderstood Mrs McGrady’s remarks, I hope that she will correct me.

Mr Lewis:
With regard to the first question about whether the visitor centre will make a contribution to the public purse, by “public purse”, I assume that the member means the coffers of Moyle District Council. The council makes a return on its direct expenditure, although it is not a huge amount — about £300,000 each year.

That money is reinvested in other facilities in the district. Bear in mind that, as Councillor Harding said, Moyle is the smallest district council, representing a population of 16,000, with a very low rate base. Yet the council’s area covers the Giant’s Causeway and the Glens of Antrim; it is a great tourist destination, and Moyle District Council must provide facilities. For example, it provides more public conveniences than most district councils do, and it has 11 harbours and slipways to maintain as well as all the tourism infrastructure that visitors expect. The Giant’s Causeway makes a return, but it is all reinvested in the district.

I cannot say much about the threat to the world heritage status. I am aware of the UNESCO mission report, which, taken at face value, seems to rule out the application submitted by Seaport Investments Ltd as it stands. Whether the proposed development is a direct threat to the site’s world heritage status is a matter for UNESCO.

Mr Newton:
You referred to making a return on direct expenditure, but what about indirect expenditure and the initial capital outlay?

Mr Lewis:
The capital outlay is insignificant, because we are operating out of totally inadequate temporary buildings at present. The return that we are getting is over and above the direct running costs for premises, salaries, wages and other costs.

Mr Newton:
Have they been written off?

Mr Lewis:
Yes.

Ms McGrady:
A contribution is made to the public purse through the council, but a contribution also goes directly to The National Trust. As we stated, we reinvest that money straight back into the world heritage site. You raised an important point. We depend on the income to maintain the world heritage site; without it, we would be unable to maintain the site to the same standard, because The National Trust in Northern Ireland runs at a £1·5 million deficit as a region. Therefore the income is critical for the National Trust to do its job. The income from our facilities is reinvested into National Trust properties. There is a circular relationship between our duties to preserve, protect and provide access to our sites. A significant contribution is derived from retailing and catering at the Giant’s Causeway, which goes straight back into maintaining the world heritage site.

I welcome the Minister’s stating his four points so clearly, as we concur absolutely with them. The Committee asked whether it was only a matter of detail, but we will always refer to what we have been recommended to do: as owners and protectors of the site, we will refer to UNESCO. We made it clear over the past week that we are desperate that those elements are delivered, and we will work with the Department to ensure that the right process is put in place to ensure that they are. Public ownership of the centre would mean that all the investment could go back into the site and the wider area. That investment is needed to maintain the site at its current standard. In fact, we aspire to improve it.

It has frustrated us for many years that we have not been able to invest in the site to the level that we would like and that our visitors deserve. We are absolutely open to talking to the Department, provided that the criteria that we have agreed here are met.

Richard Lewis was absolutely right about the threat to the world heritage site status being a matter for UNESCO. The fact remains that UNESCO has produced only one substantiated report, which it referred to in the past two days and which it says it will return to.

The quote that I read refers specifically to a planning issue. However, UNESCO made several other recommendations, such as the international design competition and integrated management structure, which the Department has already delivered. To have to start again and redevelop a proposal in line with the recommendations would take a long time.

Ms J McCann:
Thank you for your informative presentations.

Value for money has been raised many times and is at the crux of the matter, as opposed to the other three points that you mentioned in the presentation. Do you agree that the return on the £21 million of public money that was to be invested should be viewed as a long-term project over a period of years, instead of one for short-term gain? It would be much better for the money to go back into the public purse so that it could be reinvested into the Causeway and the general area. We keep hearing about value for money and that people are opposed to private investors, but it seems clear that keeping the project in the public domain would mean better value for money. What are your views on that?

Ms McGrady:
I am nodding vigorously because I firmly believe that the project should be viewed as an investment, not a cost. Investment will result in a return that is substantially higher to the public purse in the long term. The figure of £21 million has been questioned because the project was originally estimated at £8 million and then rose to £14 million. All the stakeholders would be willing to reconsider those costs. However, it must be viewed as an investment that is for the long-term public good and that of the world heritage site and the wider area. That investment must go back in, and if it does, that will reap much higher benefits than if it goes in other directions.

The Chairperson:
We heard that the Minister did not accept the term that his decision had been “recouched”. However, his indications are that the visitor facility enterprise that DETI and the Tourist Board are engaged in is still a possibility. Does either of you take comfort from that clarification?

Last week, officials told the Committee that there are problems with the project that you have been engaged in and that there are issues that are preventing planning permission. Alan McFarland referred to this. The only specific problem that the officials mentioned is the requirement to have 400 car-parking spaces. The Committee was colourfully told that officials were personally promenading around Bushmills and elsewhere, trying to identify the 400 spaces. Were you always aware that the number of car-parking spaces was a Planning Service requirement or did it come from elsewhere? Where did the figure of 400 spaces as an absolute requirement for the application to progress come from?

Mr Thompson:
The terms of the international design competition, which went out to architects all over the world, required 198 parking spaces at the site. When the work was done behind the scenes after the competition, two things were realised. First, it would be difficult to squeeze 198 spaces onto the site when the concept was turning into a design. Secondly, as a result of correspondence and negotiations with the Roads Service of the Department for Regional Development, it was realised that there was not enough space, so an alternative location had to be found. Officials in DETI made it known to Moyle District Council and the National Trust that they were engaged in discussions with the Environment and Heritage Service and the Planning Service about the nature of what the parking provisions should be and the likely and potential locations.

Ms McGrady:
That is fair; the National Trust was aware of those discussions. Possibly, the bit missing was the opportunity to engage in the debate to consider alternatives. Having said that, we know that other sites were being considered and that councillors from Moyle District Council were involved.

The Chairperson:
Was it your understanding that the site would not be ready for a planning application until the 400 spaces were available?

Ms McGrady:
We understood that, and we were keen to find a solution to that.

The Chairperson:
Who advised you that that was a precondition for a planning application?

Mr Lewis:
DETI advised the council of that, having received advice from various agencies in the Department of the Environment.

The Chairperson: 
Therefore, you were being told that your proposal was a non-starter if you could not provide 400 parking spaces, even when you were applying for planning permission.

Mr Thompson: 
If we had engaged in the process in a different way, we could have stated that our intention was to apply for 200 parking spaces because the new building is just replacing the former one. However, we are all keen to ensure that the solution is the right one for the site, that it complies with all of the rigorous planning requirements and those set out in the UNESCO report.

Ms McGrady:
We wanted to apply for full, and not just outline, planning permission as we did not want to risk the possibility of beginning the planning process and then being refused. We were trying, at every point, to ensure that we made best use of the system.

The Chairperson: 
When you say “we”, who do you mean?

Ms McGrady: 
I used the word “we” because we worked as a team, but DETI was clearly responsibility for moving the proposal towards planning submission stage: there is no doubt about that.

The Chairperson: 
Would the Tourist Board have understood that it was preferable to have the proposal ready for full planning permission?

Ms McGrady: 
Yes. Everyone felt that it was better to have full planning permission.

The Chairperson:
Was that your understanding?

Ms McGrady:
Yes.

The Chairperson: 
And now we have an indication that the Minister of the Environment is minded to give outline planning permission to a project with only 200 parking spaces, and that that appears to have been deemed an adequate reason for DETI putting your project on hold.

Ms McGrady:
That would appear to be correct.

The Chairperson: 
It has not been said publicly, but are the National Trust and Moyle District Council exasperated with each other as partners?

Ms McGrady: 
There was some truth in that, but both bodies signed an agreement in 2005.

Councillor Harding: 
We recognised that we had to work together for the good of not only the Giant’s Causeway but of all those who visit it.

Mr Lewis: 
After the fire, there were competing proposals, so things got a little fractious at times. However, since May 2003 we have all signed up to the DETI proposal and have been working together throughout the process. To my knowledge, there have been no disagreements.

The Chairperson: 
We are glad to hear that you have not been exasperating each other for some time. Have you either separately, or collectively, been exasperating your partners in NITB or DETI? Do you think that you are proficient in exasperating partners in the project? [Laughter.]

Ms McGrady: 
We signed an agreement with Giant’s Causeway Visitor Facilities in 2005. All stakeholders involved have slightly different priorities. The National Trust’s priority is protecting the site. Moyle District Council and NITB have their own priorities, so it is not surprising that there was some negotiation required to arrive at a point where all agreed — but we did so, in May 2005. Are we going to be best buddies? I think we have got to a point where — [Laughter.]

Mr Hamilton: 
I have listened with great interest to the evidence, and there were some very encouraging comments, particularly Ms McGrady’s point about being optimistic about finding the right solution and being grateful that there is now some impetus behind the scheme. I sympathise with the points made about reinvesting in tourism in the Moyle area and in the Giant’s Causeway by the National Trust. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment mentioned that earlier on today, and I agree that both organisations have a very strong position as regards access. Have there been any plans to have discussions with the private developer?

Mr Lewis:
There are no plans for officials from Moyle District Council to meet the private developer at this stage. Council officials received a letter from the developer requesting a meeting, but, given that last week the council reaffirmed its view at a special meeting that the centre should be in public ownership, it was decided that there would be no point in meeting the developer.

Ms McGrady:
The National Trust would also prefer that the centre remain in public hands; that is the only way in which to secure maximum investment in the world heritage site and in the wider area. That is the preferred route, but our starting point is to ensure that the four key objectives are delivered. The National Trust has not received any requests for a meeting with any private developer. We are in a slightly different position in that we do not have a council behind us to give us a straight directive. Representatives from the National Trust will always speak to anyone. We are clear about our objective, and our work with the Department achieves that. We will speak to anyone because that is what the National Trust is here to do. However, we remain focused on what we are trying to achieve.

Mr Hamilton:
I come from a local government background, so I appreciate the comments about local authorities. However, if a meeting has not been sought, perhaps there should be an impetus to seek one, because there is good reason to examine whether those four elements could be met through the other scheme. I understand people’s preferences, but there may be an opportunity to iron out some of those problems through discussions.

Ms McGrady:
I met Mr Sweeney from Seaport Investments Ltd a year and a half ago to discuss potential collaboration on sustainable transport solutions. That shows that the precedent has been set and that the National Trust is willing to engage in discussions with anyone, but we will always refer back to UNESCO.

Mr Cree:
The problem with members speaking after witnesses is that many of their questions have already been answered. Two projects are in the melting pot, and outline planning permission has been sought for one. That used to be a simple process, but planners have made it more complicated, and a great deal of detail is now required at the outline planning stage. The planners probably would have required as much detail for an outline planning application as they would for a full planning application. That being the case, did the private developer apply for 200 or 400 car parking spaces?

Obviously, you would have been working towards applying for full planning permission, so presumably, your project was completed and any changes to roads and so forth would have been discussed with Roads Service. It was mentioned that the Department was looking for car-parking spaces, and I understand that the council owns nine acres of land in the area. Would it have been possible to have used some of that land? The council owns the temporary heritage centre at the causeway site. Has full planning permission been granted for that building, or has temporary planning permission been granted, with the result that it has a short lease?

Mr Kevin McGarry (Moyle District Council):
The temporary buildings have been granted planning permission for five years, so it comes up for renewal every five years.

Mr Cree:
When is the planning permission due for renewal?

Mr McGarry:
It is due for renewal in 2010. Moyle District Council has additional land, and it has been offered to the melting pot for parking facilities. However, if it is agreed that that land is a greenfield site, we have been directed that no building or development will be permitted.

Ms McGrady:
From reading the file, our understanding is that the other planning application is for 200 parking spaces.

Mr Cree:
It is great to be wise after the event, but, had you known that, can I presume that you would have proceeded with your application?

Ms McGrady:
It is not our planning application.

Mr Thompson:
The planning application was made by the people who were at the table before us. It is their application, and they had driven the project forward. We are willing and able stakeholders.

Mr Cree:
I thought it was a partnership; however, I am obviously mistaken.

Ms McGrady:
Yes, but obviously there had to be someone who was responsible for submitting the application, but it was not within our gift.

The Chairperson:

It was not you who were holding up the planning application?

Ms McGrady:
Absolutely not.

Mr Newton:
Is the National Trust willing to consider the working out of the potential developer and private-sector involvement in the site, provided that the four main points to which you referred are considered?

Ms McGrady:
We are willing to discuss any proposal that will fully meet — [Interruption.]

Mr Newton:
Any proposal?

Ms McGrady:
Any proposal that fully meets the needs that have been laid down by UNESCO. We prefer the project to stay in public hands, because that will assure the minimum level of investment that needs to go back into the world heritage site and to the wider area. We believe that the public sector is the best way of ensuring that.

Mr Newton:
That would be your first preference.

Ms McGrady:
The National Trust’s first preference is that the project should remain in public hands. We believe that —

Mr Newton:
But you are willing to consider other options?

Ms McGrady:
We are on record as saying that we will talk to anyone who will help us deliver.

Mr Newton:
Provided that the four key points that you have outlined —

Ms McGrady:
Are delivered to the level that we believe they need to be delivered. That is laid down by UNESCO.

Mr Newton:
And the council has taken the position that there is only one solution to the provision of facilities on the site, and that is a partnership between the public sector and the National Trust?

Mr Lewis:
It is the council’s view that this important site and facility should be provided and operated in public ownership.

Ms McGrady:
We agree with that.

Mr Newton:
Is that a definitive position, because it is not the position of the National Trust, which has a first preference, but is willing to consider other options?

Ms McGrady:
The National Trust is a reasonable organisation that is willing to talk to anyone, but it is absolutely its first preference that the facility should be in public hands.

Mr Newton:
I understand that. Moyle District Council, however, has taken the definitive position that there is only one solution to the provision of world-class, iconic facilities on the Giant’s Causeway site.

Mr Lewis:
The council’s view is that the proposal that we have been working on with DETI and the other partners for the past four years should continue.

Mr Thompson:
That is also the primary preference of the National Trust.

Ms McGrady:
Absolutely.

The Chairperson:
Ms McGrady, you may not fully know the answer to my next question. You have referred to the UNESCO standards and requirements several times, as has the council. The Minister of the Environment has indicated that she intends to approve the Seaport Investments Ltd proposal. She will take the decision on that after meeting UNESCO. Would that meeting be better if UNESCO had both proposals in front of it instead of just one?

Ms McGrady:
My view is that UNESCO should talk with both proposals in front of it.

The Chairman:
Would you go in there with one in pole position? It is clear from what you have said that you prefer one proposal in particular.

Ms McGrady:
We have only seen the outline planning application, like everyone else, but at face value it does not comply, at present, in any shape or form with the recommendations laid down by UNESCO. I am strongly of the view that the Minister should look at the two proposals in parallel. UNESCO’s mission was part of the entire process.

I am in no doubt that the project led by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, in collaboration with the stakeholders around the table, is the best way to deliver what UNESCO requires in a timely fashion with public funding in mind.

I have no doubt that that is the best way of achieving those objectives.

The Chairperson:
Thank you very much for your briefing and assistance.

embers will discuss later — unless they want to do so now — how we progress those issues. Obviously, there are other interested parties. The Heritage Lottery Fund has written to the Committee offering the possibility of funding and to facilitate a discussion with various experts about how to bring forward developments in and around world heritage sites. The Heritage Lottery Fund has experience in those matters, and it is making the same offer to the Committee for the Environment. It is offering to facilitate a discussion at Hadrian’s Wall where members of the Committee could see a world heritage site and the facilities that have been funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund. The Committee can think about putting that offer into its work programme, and no doubt there will be other interested parties willing to talk to the Committee.