COMMITTEE FOR ENTERPRISE, TRADE & INVESTMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Giant’s Causeway Visitors’ Centre

25 September 2007

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

Witnesses:
Mr Ciaran McGarrity ) Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment
Mr Alan Clarke ) Northern Ireland Tourist Board
Mrs Kathryn Thomson )

The Chairperson (Mr Durkan):
I remind those present that, courtesy of Hansard, transcripts of the evidence relating to the Giant’s Causeway issue that was taken both last week and the week before are available. I must issue a health warning that those transcripts are, as yet, uncorrected, and members and witnesses have been asked to provide any amendments or corrections. Hansard is here again and will provide a transcript of this session. On behalf of the members of the Committee, I thank Hansard for providing that facility, particularly in circumstances that have put a strain on its resources.

The witnesses are: Alan Clarke, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board; Kathryn Thomson, its director of finance and business planning; and, once again, Ciaran McGarrity, who leads tourism special projects for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI).

People do not need me to outline exactly what we will be discussing. Last week, members had the opportunity to hear from Moyle District Council and the National Trust on their experiences and perceptions of events relating to the new visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway. At that time, members indicated that they would appreciate hearing from the Tourist Board, which was a key player in developing the project.

Mr Alan Clarke ( Northern Ireland Tourist Board):
It will be helpful if I take a few minutes to set the context to the signature project for the Giant’s Causeway and the glens. It may also be of some benefit to the Committee if I highlight some of the research that we carried out last year.

The Giant’s Causeway was one of five signature projects in our ‘Strategic Framework for Action 2004-2007’, which was launched in 2004. The purpose of that was to gain international standout for Northern Ireland and to attract more visitors. We especially wished to encourage those visitors who come through the Dublin gateway to think about going north.

I know that the Committee is considering issues relating to the visitors’ centre, which was one of three strands in the signature project. The three strands were: the visitors’ centre; the master plan, which has since become the Causeway coastal route; and the world heritage site itself. We viewed the integration of those three strands as vital to the implementation of the signature project. The visitors’ centre, although important, was only one of those strands.

The integration of the five signature projects, which the Chairperson is well aware of, is vital. The visitors’ centre is to be one of the pearls along the Causeway coastal route, and that project will integrate with other linked signature projects such as the Titanic and maritime heritage project in Belfast and the walled city of Derry project.

Visitor research was carried out last year, and I will highlight some of the findings that relate to the importance of the Giant’s Causeway to tourism in Northern Ireland. The Giant’s Causeway played a major role in people’s decision to visit Northern Ireland. Two thirds of those surveyed — 68% — said either that it was the main reason or that it was very important in their decision to visit Northern Ireland. Perhaps that sets the strategic context for why the Giant’s Causeway has a vital role to play.

The research also highlighted the importance of the stones and their unique natural environment to the overall visitor experience. It is not just about the visitor experience; it is about the importance of the stones to that experience.

We found that the average dwell time was two hours. Roughly an hour was spent at the stones, and, obviously, people must get down to and back up from the stones. On average, only 20 minutes was spent in the visitors’ centre.

How do we move forward to increase the economic benefit of the Causeway to the local area, in spend and length of stay? That is where the Tourist Board sees the Giant’s Causeway signature project playing a vital role.

The Giant’s Causeway was seen very much as being a good-weather facility, and not somewhere to visit if the weather is poor. Therefore, the building of a visitor centre might increase not only dwell time but people’s propensity to visit at times of the year when the weather is not so good.

The site was not considered to be a major family attraction, and most visitors did not bring children with them. We thought that a visitor centre would help to play a role in attracting a wider demographic, particularly families. We also asked people the key themes that they would like to see explored in the visitor centre. They included: information on the area’s geology, especially around the formation of the stones; information on the area’s myths and legends, such as that of Finn McCool; and information on the landscape, particularly on the coastal landscape of the Causeway.

One important issue that the Committee has been examining is potential car-parking facilities for a visitor centre. In the survey that was conducted last year, it was found that two thirds of visitors to the Giant’s Causeway came by car, a quarter came by coach and a small number arrived on foot. Roughly one in 10 visitors was dissatisfied with the current car-parking facilities: they either found the bays to be too small or that not enough spaces were available, particularly at peak times.

The Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s research also determined the admission charge that people would be prepared to pay. Based on the research into sensitivities that we conducted last year, on average, a maximum admission charge of £8 was the ceiling if we were to run a viable operation.

We also analysed the Giant’s Causeway’s economic impact. Approximately half of the visitors sampled who were staying overnight — that is, who were not day trippers — were spending the night in the Giant’s Causeway and glens of Antrim area. If the Giant’s Causeway gets more people to stay longer in the locality, that shows its potential to attract greater economic benefit. Moreover, the Giant’s Causeway could help to promote other attractions in the area — such as the Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge and the Old Bushmills Distillery — and increase awareness of the benefits of staying in the area for longer.

Finally, the coastal route is vital to encouraging people to travel more widely along the Causeway Coast and through the glens of Antrim. Encouragingly, two thirds of visitors to the Giant’s Causeway had travelled, to some extent, along the coastal route, and that figure was higher than expected. That shows the potential for linking the Giant’s Causeway to the wider coastal route between Belfast and Derry.

That is an overall review of our research. I will hand over to Ciaran, who will give you an update on the project.

Mr Ciaran McGarrity (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment):
I will deliver a brief chronology of what has happened. Moreover, I will put the Giant’s Causeway project in context and highlight some of the constraints within which the Department was operating. I am showing the Committee a photograph of the aerial view of the Giant’s Causeway. The brown field is the car park. The Committee can see the current facilities, and the National Trust’s tea house and shop. That is the site that the Department issued to international competition to ask for design solutions. The Grand Causeway, the old schoolhouse and the old Nook pub by Ardihannon railway station can also be seen in the photograph.

That is the world heritage site, with a four-kilometre restriction zone for development. The ownership is divided by colour on the next slide: National Trust property is highlighted in green, while Moyle District Council owns the land highlighted in red. The road to the Causeway hotel is the boundary that the Department put down for the international competition — I will later explain why the Department did not use all of Moyle District Council’s land.

Finally, the area shown in purple is owned by Seaport Investments Ltd.

Members may ask why that is important. For those who have been to the Causeway and have listened to various phone-in shows over the summer, the main issues are access, car parking, queues and delays. The 500,000 visitors to the Causeway arrive in 90,000 vehicles — half of them in a two-month period. As those who live in the area use the same road, access and car parking at the Causeway will always be a concern. Part of DETI’s solution to lighten the load was to have car parking off site. That provides some context and clarification of the position.

Another issue is also important, because I listened to the Committee meeting last week. I am drifting into the area of planning now, but I want members to be clear on this issue, because it has already been clarified at a meeting of the Committee for the Environment. Concern was expressed about why DETI was waiting for a planning application for 400 car-parking spaces to proceed, given that the Minister has announced her opinion on the merits of another planning application that included only 200 spaces. The reason for that is that there are a further 200 spaces on a different part of the site. Those, plus the applicant’s 200, made 400 in total.

The Department’s development land, and the land used for the international competition, are on the current brownfield site, visitor centre and car park. I hope that that helps to give the Committee some context and a visual impression of the ownership issues and the constraints on access.

On the next slide, the current temporary buildings are shown in yellow along the ridge line. The Government-backed proposal was the winning solution from the international design competition, and that building is also shown.

As I am conscious of time, I will not delve into the detailed chronology of the Causeway but will simply clarify some issues in case of any uncertainty. The crucial date was April 2000, when the visitor centre was destroyed by fire. Between then and the ministerial announcement in April 2003, there was an inability to arrive at a solution, as explained by the Minister and in other evidence to the Committee.

In the previous Assembly, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment failed to arrive at a solution that would meet the needs of all stakeholders in the Causeway. In April 2003, there was a joint ministerial announcement by Angela Smith, the direct rule Minister with responsibility for the environment, and Ian Pearson, the direct rule Minister with responsibility for enterprise, trade and investment. They announced a three-strand approach that recognised the needs of all stakeholders.

There was to be an international architectural competition to find a world-class design for the visitor centre. There was no mention of who would deliver on that or how: the primary point was that there would be a competition. It was made clear that the question of delivering the project would be considered further down the line when there was an outline business case, and the possible options were identified.

As Alan explained, the second strand was the Causeway Coast and glens tourism master plan, which set out a strategy for the development of tourism on the north coast over the 10-year period from 2003 to 2013.

It was recognised that the Giant’s Causeway is the only world heritage site in Northern Ireland. UNESCO’s report identified the need for an integrated management plan involving all key stakeholders, because the Causeway is in multiple ownership. Thus, the third strand, the integrated management plan, formed a major part of the initiative and was subsequently progressed and produced by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS).

That all happened following direct Government involvement in 2003. The Department appointed its consultants. As a public organisation, it had to go through a process of open competition. Once appointed, the consultants engaged with the stakeholders. To be clear, the stakeholders were the National Trust, Moyle District Council, the EHS, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and DETI, all of whom had different needs and objectives.

Some focused on the financial implications for the Moyle area. The Committee has heard evidence from Moyle District Council on the importance of revenue from the car park to the ratepayers in Moyle and to the development of their infrastructure. That was one of the council’s major criteria.

The National Trust, as the owner of the world eritage site, is responsible for its upkeep and maintenance and is very keen that the site be maintained and developed in accordance with UNESCO regulations and its own guidelines. That is important.

Those considerations — as well as the Tourist Board’s considerations: the provision of world-class facilities and the attraction of more visitors — determined the scale, size and location of facilities. There was a compromise between economic and environmental considerations. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to build a breeze-block centre with three storeys containing a big shop for £2 million.

However, interpretation was important for the Department: an explanation of how the Causeway was formed, the significance of the area of outstanding natural beauty, the wildlife habitats, the world heritage site designation, and the geology of the site. We recognised that, because facilities at the site were terrible, that information and interpretation were not reaching the 500,000 visitors. Those are the things that the visitors are interested in; they do not want another shop. They want to find out about the Causeway, its folklore and what else there is to do in the region. I will return to that, but it is a part of the interpretive element.

People talk about the delay. I was pleased that the National Trust and Moyle District Council recognise that it is a complex site. It is not something for which a planning application can be easily processed; myriad designations, stakeholder groups and pressure and lobby groups are involved, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other organisations, each of which has a view on how the Causeway should be managed. There is school of thought that the centre should be in Bushmills; that the Causeway should be returned to its natural state and a visitors’ centre should be 1∙5 miles or two miles away. That is why the project has taken so long. The Department recognised the obvious difficulties: we did not own the land, Moyle District Council did; the National Trust had 80 years remaining on its lease and was therefore protected under the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. We could not parachute in a solution to which neither agreed.

At any time, Moyle District Council or the National Trust might have said that they had had enough. Moyle District Council might have changed its mind again. It had changed from supporting a public-sector solution to a private-sector one and then back to a public-sector solution. At any time, it might have decided to switch back to a private-sector solution.

As a charity, the National Trust might have decided that it needed more income reinvested in the site. Were it unsure that it would get enough income from the project, it might have opted to stay with the facilities it had, namely a tea-house. Those constraints meant that we could not move without agreement at each stage.

We had the competition brief. However, before we could launch the competition Government had to be reassured that no one would pull out half-way through the competition, having decided that the expense was too great. The Department of Finance and Personnel insisted that to spend money on the project, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment had to get the stakeholders to agree that they would work with us. Both the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Public Accounts Committee highlighted the absence of that element in the Navan project. Navan was a disaster because of lack of agreement and understanding on how to progress.

We spent the next eight or nine months with lawyers and others developing a memorandum of understanding that set out our shared understanding and shared agreement on how to move forward. It recognised — and this is the key point — the interests of the National Trust and Moyle District Council.

That was all before we had a design. The National Trust and Moyle District Council signed up in the hope that the design that the competition produced would be satisfactory, not just to the National Trust Northern Ireland, but to the National Trust UK. Similarly, Moyle officials are answerable to the full council; it had to be sure that it liked and was comfortable with any design that the competition produced. When you run an international design competition, you do not know what you will get at the end of it.

The panel judging the competition had to be independent. The National Trust and Moyle District Council were not represented on the panel of judges. There were two judges from Northern Ireland and five from outside; no vested interests were represented. The judges had to focus on the competition brief that we had all worked to develop.

When the memorandum of understanding was signed in March 2005, we were able to agree an outline business case with the Department of Finance and Personnel. That was important. It did not authorise us to spend £15 million or £21 million; rather, it set out that this was the only show. At that point, this was the only realistic prospect of delivering world-class visitor facilities at the Causeway.

The outline business case also concluded, in light of the fact that the cost was estimated to be around £15 million, that a PPP or PFI approach was inappropriate. It recognised, given that the National Trust and Moyle District Council had been given financial commitments by direct rule Ministers, that a PFI solution could not be delivered.

The commitments that were given to the National Trust and to Moyle District Council are important. The primary commitment was that those bodies would be no worse off. Moyle District Council interpreted, understandably, that if it was making £270,000 or £300,000 a year, it would receive that amount in the future. At the same time, the National Trust, which was making £150,000 to £200,000 a year, would not be any worse off. How was that income being generated? One organisation was generating money through car parking and the other through retail and catering. Therefore, leases were involved, and the agreements and conditions of those leases should have meant that those organisations would not have been any worse off. That situation contributed to the delay.

The international design competitions were under way throughout that time. One competition was for architectural design — and a copy of that design has been provided to the Committee — and the other was for interpretative design. The latter concerned what would be in the visitor centre, the form that it would take, its function, and the development of its key elements. The architectural competition coincided with an announcement of the winner by the Secretary of State in December. After that, six months were spent contracting the design team, including the mechanical and structural engineers.

We have been asked why we did not appoint the design team at the same time as we chose the architects. Again, we relied on our construction colleagues in central procurement directorate. Given that a design was required in order to work out fees, calculate an estimate of the costs of the project, and decide which disciplines were required, the key issue was to get a design team on board. We could not proceed without that; it was a consequential act, but it caused more delay. That is a further explanation of the length of time that the project has taken.

Once the design team was on board, we examined the actual design. We took the concept, which was detailed on three A5 boards, through to the point at which we were able to produce a detailed cost estimate. We were also able to consider car parking. The car park in the development zone could accommodate 190 cars and no buses, or 70 cars and 12 buses. Four-hundred spaces were needed; therefore, the shortfall had to be made up in some way. All the stakeholders, particularly the National Trust and the Environment and Heritage Service, had obvious environmental concerns in that there should be no net increase in development around the site. That pushed us into considering an off-site solution in Bushmills.

Decanting was also an important concern. That point is crucial, so I will come back to it. Both stakeholders told us, and we did not dispute this, that Ministers told them that they would be no worse off. They were concerned about what would happen to their facilities during construction. The nature of our design meant that their facilities could not remain while our building was being constructed. The construction period was set at 18 months, a period during which the National Trust was at risk of losing in excess of £200,000 and Moyle District Council could lose £300,000. That situation had to be resolved, so we had to plan for and provide decant facilities. It was not a case of putting their buildings in another field; the landscape would have to be retained, and the cost of that was estimated at £1·5 million. Therefore, the costs of decanting were additional. We also carried out an environmental impact assessment, and that took up more time.

Against all that, in February this year the case was reviewed, because more money had to be spent on fees. That increase meant that we had to conduct a further value-for-money review. We also recognised that a key value-for-money issue, and the reason that Government were getting involved, was that there was no other prospect of a viable delivery of a world-class visitor centre. We knew that an alternative planning application was due for consideration that would have a material bearing on the green book appraisal that we would have to carry out. Government money would be available only in the event of market failure. It was made clear that that was our position, and the Department of Finance and Personnel agreed with it, in light of all the constraints. If that situation were to change, it would obviously have an impact on the economics of the case.

I have rushed somewhat, Chairperson, but I hope that I have provided some information of which Members might not have been aware.

The Chairperson:
OK. I thank Ciaran and Alan for that presentation. I have several questions to ask, but I know that other Members also have some questions. While we were waiting for you to join us, we talked about one issue that we might explore again by way of preliminaries. Mr McFarland mentioned some of the media reports that suggested that the approved design was outwith UNESCO’s approval.

Mr McFarland:
There seems to be a suggestion that UNESCO had said that the replacement centre must be designed to match the footprint of the original, and that because the competition design was not designed to that footprint, it would not meet UNESCO’s requirements. Is that correct?

Mr McGarrity:
To be honest, that is the first that I have heard of it. The development of the competition brief — and I have it here — took about eight months; EHS, the National Trust and the Department developed it in partnership. We developed it so that no greenfield site would be involved. I am not aware that UNESCO had voiced an opinion on our brief, and it would not be —

Mr McFarland:
We heard last week from the representatives of the National Trust, and I understood that they were quoting UNESCO requirements. As I understood it, one of the requirements was that the replacement building was to be built on the same footprint as that of the original that was burnt down. If that is the case, the proposed new facility is clearly not designed to the same footprint — it has a much larger footprint.

Mr McGarrity:
It is about 1,800 sq m as opposed to 1,200 sq m — it is 50% bigger.

Mr McFarland:
Has anyone spoken to UNESCO? If it removes world heritage site status from the Giant’s Causeway, all our business on the matter is pointless. Somebody, at some stage, might reasonably have asked UNESCO whether the new competition would allow the causeway to keep its status as a world heritage site.

Mr McGarrity:
The competition was run by the International Union of Architects (UIA), which is based in Paris. The union is the organisation accredited by UNESCO to run international competitions, and, as far as I am aware — and I can check this — the International Union of Architects would have cleared the brief with UNESCO.

Mr McFarland:
Are you happy with the new footprint?

Mr McGarrity:
I am not sure what you mean by footprint. Do you mean that a new building must be put exactly where the old one was?

Mr McFarland:
My understanding was that UNESCO said that the new centre had to be a replacement building.

Mr McGarrity:
The competition brief was run under the auspices of the International Union of Architects in Paris, which is accredited by UNESCO as the organisation with sole authority for international competitions. That brief was cleared by UIA, and, de facto, cleared through UNESCO. I am not aware of —

Mr McFarland:
Are you saying that, as the chief executive of the organisation that is in charge of the matter, you do not know whether the proposal meets UNESCO’s requirements?

Mr McGarrity:
We are working on the basis that it does, because the competition was run under the UIA, which is the organisation accredited by UNESCO to run international competitions.

Mr McFarland:
I could have picked it up wrong, but did the National Trust not suggest last week that it was unhappy with the proposal — or there was something in the papers that somebody was unhappy with it?

Mr McGarrity:
No.

Mr McFarland:
OK, that is fine.

The Chairperson:
I thought that the report in the paper said that UNESCO was clarifying that it was not correct to say that it had expressed approval for the alternative proposal that was the subject of a planning application. That was because there had, apparently, been a report to the effect that UNESCO had said that it was content with the proposal from Seaport Investments Ltd.

Mr McFarland:
My question was whether UNESCO was content with the competition design, and Mr McGarrity seems to be saying that it is.

Mr McGarrity:
I quote from the UIA’s brief:

“The competition…will be administered using the UNESCO ‘Standard Regulations for International Competitions….UNESCO has conferred upon the International Union of Architects (UIA) in Paris the exclusive right to administer these regulations. DETI has appointed UIA as part of their advisory team and they will therefore supervise the application of the Standard Regulations in this competition.”

Mr McFarland:
Therefore the answer is yes, it meets the requirements?

Mr McGarrity:
I have not formally asked UNESCO, because we have not yet lodged a planning application, but I am sure that the Planning Service will consider it. We are confident that our design meets the requirements of the competition.

Mr McFarland:
I have some other questions. My first question is for Mr Alan Clarke and the Tourist Board.

“It is a consortium of partners who have been working together for several years. Every stage of the project was checked by all of the partners. We all shuffled together at the speed of the slowest. If anyone had difficulties, those difficulties were met.”

Did the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) know what was going to happen on Friday, a fortnight ago, followed by the Minister’s statement on the Monday? Were you consulted, at all, in any of the discussions as to where all that was suddenly going? As far as we can see, from last week’s evidence, it all came out of left field with not a single inkling that there was likely to be any change in what had been the understood norm. That norm was that the original Seaport Investments Ltd application had been parked in 2003. The direct rule Ministers had taken a whole new public tract and had worked with the partners, until that time. Did you have an inkling that the rules of the game, the pitch, and whatever else, were about to change — fairly dramatically from the NITB’s point of view?

Mr A Clarke:
Are you asking that question in the context of the Department of the Environment (DOE) planning application?

Mr McFarland:
No. I say that on the Monday your whole project was completely stopped — gone for ever. The word “aborted” was used. Were you surprised, on that Monday, that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment had suddenly pulled, completely, a project that you had spent four years on building?

Mr A Clarke:
We were aware that the Minister was moving towards taking a decision. However, until some time around the 10 September 2007, we did not know what that decision would be. On that same day the Department informed us that we had been asked not to progress the project through Giant’s Causeway Visitor Facilities Ltd, which was a subsidiary company of the NITB.

Mr McFarland:
You came before us and we had a whole briefing from you. It was one of your star projects. You were all, as I recall, terribly excited about it. Were you, as NITB, surprised that your star project had been torpedoed?

Mr A Clarke:
We were aware, for months, that there were sensitivities around the need for public-sector intervention in the project if there was a private-sector development. However, we did not know that there was going to be an indication of the determination of the private-sector application.

Mr McFarland:
OK. You will have seen, in December 2002, a letter in which a Dr Faulkner of the Environment and Heritage Service said that that service had objected to the bid from Seaport Investments Ltd.

Mr A Clarke:
I have not yet seen that paper.

Mr McFarland:
It comes from one of your departmental papers.

The Chairperson:
That may be taking us into the DOE and Committee for the Environment’s territory.

Mr McFarland:
I see from the famous 2 April 2007 memo from Noel Cornick that you, Ciaran, were involved in a meeting. The memo has been copied to you. It notes that a recommendation to decline the application is expected to go to the Planning Service management board that week. It states that:

“I think you are aware of what is likely to happen following this.”

Could you enlighten the Committee as to what you — as a result of those meetings — might have expected to happen following this, as a matter of procedure?

Mr A Clarke:
In what way do you mean “enlighten”?

Mr McFarland:
The memo states that:

“A recommendation to decline is expected to go to the Planning Service Management Board this week.”

That was in April. Then, it states:
“I think that you are aware of what is likely to happen following this.”

What would you, as a recipient of that, have expected to happen following that? I am just trying to find out what the procedures were.

Mr A Clarke:
It was likely that there would be opposition from the applicant who may have been turned down.

Mr McFarland:
Regarding procedure, is that all that is likely to happen, after that?

Mr A Clarke:
The Department had encouraged the DOE to come to a determination on the Seaport Investments Ltd application because it was a material factor in the consideration of the value-for-money case.

If it were not considered appropriate, there would still be market failure. That is the context in which the Department was pushing forward, and that was made clear to the Committee and others.

In February, when the Department sought to spend more money on the project, officials needed to be satisfied that there remained a rationale for public intervention. The key determinant was the possibility of another planning application coming in.

Mr McFarland:
Is it fair to say that the Department expected the Planning Service to turn down the application at that stage? That is the information I have; was that your feeling at the time?

Mr McGarrity:
A personal view — that would be an assumption.

The Chairperson:
Were you aware that the permanent secretary of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment had written a letter before that?

Mr McGarrity:
Yes, I was.

The Chairperson:
Alan, were you aware that the permanent secretary had written to the Department of the Environment before that, encouraging an early decision?

Mr A Clarke:
Yes, I was aware of that.

The Chairperson:
Were you aware of the letter that the permanent secretary had written in March?

Mr McGarrity:
The letter of 8 March 2007?

Mr A Clarke:
I cannot remember the date, but yes.

The Chairperson:
You were aware of that, but we know that the other partners in the project were not aware of that.

Mr McGarrity:
I do not think that it is correct. To establish that, it is for the other parties to answer. The other parties were aware that, for the sake of progress, value for money was an issue, I had to get approval to spend further moneys, and the key determinants would be whether the project was still required and, when conducting a value-for-money case, whether there was market failure. It was clear that we were anticipating the determination on the alternative planning application. It should not have been a surprise to the other parties that we were pressing the Department of the Environment for a decision.

The Chairperson:
Your interpretation does not rhyme with the account that they gave. They seemed to be behind the pillar on the issue.

Mr McGarrity:
That is something for the other parties to comment on. They may have been shocked at the outcome of the decision, as I was, but I do not believe that they were “behind the pillar”, to use your term, in anticipating that decision.

Mr McFarland:
Last week, we were informed of, and were surprised about, the issue of car parking. Seaport Investments Ltd’s outline application had 200 spaces. The public team that were progressing the application had been prevented from putting in an outline on the grounds that they were told that they had to submit a full application and that it had to provide for 400 car-parking spaces.

Last week, Moyle District Council and the National Trust said that, three weeks ago, everything was ready to go. The evidence that the Committee heard was clear that everything was set to go, except for the issue of car parking. Both parties were clear that the only issue that was preventing the case going to a planning application was car parking.

I refer to the memorandum dated 2 April: last week, the Committee heard that the second part of the car-parking provision was the possibility of a bus depot in Bushmills being turned into a backup car park. The objection to using that car park was made by five Bushmills councillors. Do you know who they are?

Mr McGarrity:
The five councillors who represent the Bushmills ward on Moyle District Council?

Mr McFarland:
Yes. Can you name them?

Mr McGarrity:
I cannot name them off the top of my head, but I met them, and I know that they were opposed to that.

Mr McFarland:
Do you know which parties those councillors represent?

The Chairperson:
You cannot ask the audience, but we can phone a friend. I am sure that we can find out that information. [Laughter.]

Mr McGarrity:
I know that the UUP and the DUP were represented, and perhaps an Independent. Andrew Price McConaghy was one of the councillors.

Mr McFarland:
Are their names available to the Committee if it needs them?

Mr McGarrity:
I assume so, as they are the five representatives for the Bushmills ward.

Mr McFarland:
Do you know why they objected?

Mr McGarrity:
I will clarify the reason that they objected. The issue was not simply about using the coach park but extending the coach park into a soccer field, which is behind the Dundarave housing estate.

Therefore, the changing facilities and, perhaps, some of the play area had to be realigned and removed to accommodate that.

There was also a concern that there was no space for coaches. There was a car park; however, if coaches were to be parked in it, for health and safety reasons, its capacity would have been dramatically reduced.

Mr McFarland:
Were councillors taken through the logic of the fact that, despite its being a landmark project on which years had been spent to the enormous pain of all concerned, the only block to its development was their concerns about the football pitch?

Mr McGarrity:
That concern did not block the project; the planning application was blocked because of the need for off-site car parking.

Mr McFarland:
Did anyone take the councillors through all that? Were they still not familiar with it?

Mr McGarrity:
No. To be clear: it had not gone before the entire district council. Of a council of 15 members, those were the views of five local councillors.

Mr McFarland:
Was Moyle District Council not officially briefed as the Department’s partner? Presumably, all those requirements were explained to them, yet local councillors were still unhappy.

Mr P Maskey:
Mr McGarrity mentioned the planning application for the other car park, which was to be situated on the same site as the visitors’ centre. Who owns that land?

Mr McGarrity:
It belongs to Moyle District Council.

Mr P Maskey:
Given that the Minister supports Seaport Investments Ltd’s application, has the Department spoken to Moyle District Council about the use of that land?

Mr McGarrity:
I cannot comment on that application or on the relationship between Seaport Investments Ltd and the council on the use of that land as a car park.

Mr P Maskey:
Does that mean that DETI, along with other Departments, is willing to support that application, regardless of whether concerned bodies and the owner of the land have been consulted? The crux of the matter is the 400 car-parking spaces. If the application is to be accepted, we must explore whether that question has been asked. If it has not, we must ask why not. If organisations have not asked it, they, too, must ask themselves why not.

Decanting is an additional issue that creates the same problem because the land is to be used by Seaport Investments Ltd. The problem arises from decanting the original visitors’ centre. Is that not the case?

Mr McGarrity:
No. The Department’s decant was to construct a temporary facility in the field in front of the hotel, which is owned by Moyle District Council. I am not aware of a need to decant for the Seaport Investments Ltd application; I do not see why there would be such a need.

Mr P Maskey:
There is a need. That land must be decanted in order to create the space on which to build a car park. I understand that I may have made that comment in hindsight; however, that matter has not been explored.

Mr McGarrity:
I want to clarify: decanting would have allowed the Department to move temporary facilities in order to clear space for construction if it were to proceed with its project. The decant facilities would be moved to the field in front of the Causeway Hotel. I can comment only on the decant for DETI’s proposal.

Mr P Maskey:
The Tourist Board has been asked about when it found out that DETI’s project was not going ahead. Did it ever advise the Minister not to go ahead with the proposals that were on the table at that stage in order to consider alternatives, such as the Seaport Investment Ltd application?

Mr A Clarke:
No.

Mr Neeson:
Is that road that is depicted on the ownership map an existing road?

Mr McGarrity:
Yes.

Mr Neeson:
The number of vested interests in the area is a major part of the problem. After the talks broke down in 2001, the idea was proposed that that land should be vested by the Department. Was that considered?

Mr McGarrity:
I believe that Moyle District Council’s request was that the Department of the Environment vest the land. I cannot comment on that Department’s response. However, the facts suggest that that did not happen.

Mr Neeson:
Should it not have happened?

Mr McGarrity:
That is post-rationalisation — it is like asking whether, had we to start again, we would start at the same point. Everyone has his or her own views on that.

Mr Neeson:
Bearing in mind that we are dealing with Northern Ireland’s number one tourist attraction, surely it was within the Department’s powers to vest not only Moyle District Council’s land but that of Seaport Investments Ltd.

Mr McGarrity:
That would have been the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, not the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The key point is that it was also an issue for Moyle District Council. After that, the council decided to tender for bids. Ultimately, the decision about the use of the land was in the hands of the council.

The Chairperson:
What about the question of vesting the land?

Mr McGarrity:
The power to vest the land lay with the Department of the Environment. I cannot comment on whether that Department should, or could, have done that. All I can say is that vesting the land for a visitors’ centre was not in DETI’s gift.

The Chairperson:
Could DETI ask another Department to vest the land for that purpose?

Mr McGarrity:
If someone were to put forward a rationale for the Department to vest land, it would consider that request. However, the issue, from DETI’s perspective, is the delivery of world-class facilities. As for how they are delivered, Government intervention should be a last resort after the market fails. That is down to the private sector.

The Chairperson:
DETI has no vesting powers?

Mr McGarrity:
As far as I am aware, it does not have that power in respect of tourism, but I could be wrong.

The Chairperson:
It would have to rely on the powers of another Department?

Mr McGarrity:
If that was the case, yes.

The Chairperson:
Is that possible?

Mr McGarrity:
I presume so, subject to advice from lawyers or those who know the relevant legislation.

Mr Neeson:
I raised that matter because land has been vested in other areas, albeit by the Department of the Environment. That brings us back to the question of joined-up government. There has been no evidence of joined-up government in respect of this project.

Recently, Peter Curistan publicly offered to provide a facility. Have any negotiations taken place with the Department about that proposal?

The Chairperson:
Ciaran, you will have plenty of time to think about your answer.

Committee suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming —

[Due to a technical difficulty, a short section of the meeting was not recorded.]

Mr McGarrity:
As I mentioned during my presentation, Moyle District Council changed its mind before and it could do so again. It could decide to sell the land at whatever rate it might get for it. That question should be directed to Moyle District Council.

Mr Newton:
The potential project is built on four pillars: it must represent value for money; the world heritage site must be protected; the facilities must be world class; and a timely decision must be made. Have you heard anything about the stances of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment or the Minister of the Environment that gives you any cause for concern that they will not ensure that those four pillars are in place before the project goes ahead?

Mr A Clarke:
I have heard nothing from the Ministers that would undermine those principles. We will learn more as the planning process develops and we get a final decision on the project.

The Chairperson:
DETI has said that a publicly-funded project will proceed only on the basis of market failure. The situation was that a planning application had been submitted for an alternative proposition. Why did the Tourist Board proceed to the degree that it did, knowing that there was an alternative proposition?

Mr A Clarke:
Mr McGarrity’s presentation demonstrated that there was much frustration at the delay in the process. The Tourist Board required a vehicle to take the proposal forward. The Department did not have the ability to set up that vehicle, but the Tourist Board had that ability under The Tourism ( Northern Ireland) Order 1992. Therefore, we established a subsidiary company of NITB named Giant's Causeway Visitor Facilities Ltd, which included departmental representation.

The Chairperson:
You knew that a planning application had been submitted all along. A decision about that could have come at any time.

Mr A Clarke:
As Mr McGarrity has outlined, there was a lot of frustration. Ministers gave Moyle District Council no indication of the need to move forward on a project on the original site. Because of the importance of the Giant’s Causeway to tourism, and because of the complicated ownership in the area, the Ministers felt that they needed to intervene to get the project moving on the original site.

The Chairperson:
Mr McGarrity presented the Committee with a timeline and gave us a blanket presentation. I hope that the substance of your presentation will not be one of the subjects in the visitors’ centre, because it would not be a very interesting one. With all due respect, I am sure that many other interesting stories can be told to visitors. Your timeline did not show that the big change in progress came with the restoration of devolution.

Mr McGarrity:
The big change came on 10 September, when the Minister of the Environment made her announcement.

The Chairperson:
The big change came with the restoration of devolution and because the Minister of the Environment decided that she was taking the project forward.

Mr McGarrity:
The consequence of that was the announcement made on 10 September. Departmental officials had been urging a decision under the direct rule Administration. That was critical to inform the value-for-money element of the economic appraisal.

The Chairperson:
Under the direct rule Administration, were you aware that representations had been made about the project?

Mr McGarrity:
I was not aware that representations had been made.

The Chairperson:
Was the Tourist Board aware of representations being made about either of the two projects?

Mr McGarrity:
A wide consultation was carried out, and representations on the Department’s project came from a variety of sources, including stakeholders.

The Chairperson:
Were there representations against it?

Mr McGarrity:
I am not aware of representations against it. We had meetings with all stakeholders about issues such as access, other landowners and car-parking, for example, in Bushmills.

The Chairperson:
At any stage, were you aware that people may have been making representations to Ministers against the proposed visitor facility project that the Tourist Board was involved in, and in favour of the alternative project proposed by Seaport Investments Ltd? Were you aware of any representations being made to Ministers at any level?

Mr McGarrity:
Proposals were presented to Moyle District Council on seven or eight occasions, but there was not always unanimous support for our project. Some councillors were against our project, but they were in favour of either selling the land or supporting an alternative project for a private-sector developer: that is public knowledge. Other individuals may have made representations to Ministers, lobbying on behalf of their own interests.

The Chairperson:
Were you aware of other representations?

Mr McGarrity:
I was not aware of other representations, and I was not involved in any representations that involved dropping our project in favour of another.

Mr A Clarke:
When the design was announced, there was widespread support from partners.

The Chairperson:
Are you aware of any public statements that criticised or questioned such matters?

Mr McGarrity:
Some public statements have criticised our proposed way forward. We never went forward on the project with unanimity in Moyle District Council, and I am sure that the council will be the first to share that information with the Committee. There was always some council opposition to the proposed redevelopment of the site and to maintaining it in public ownership. That representation could have been effected through various parties.

The Chairperson:
Do you recollect when you became aware that the Minister for the Environment was bringing the project forward?

Mr McGarrity:
I became aware of that at the same time as the permanent secretary and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment became aware of it, which was 21 August. I may be wrong about that date, but she announced that she was of a mind to go down that route.

The Chairperson:
Did officials from the Department of the Environment indicate that the private-sector development was unlikely to be favoured for planning?

Mr McGarrity:
That is correct.

The Chairperson:
When did you learn that Seaport Investments Ltd was unlikely to win planning approval?

Mr McGarrity:
Around March, I received a copy of a memo from Noel Cornick to Stephen Quinn which stated that Seaport Investments Ltd was unlikely to win planning approval.

The Chairperson:
Alan Clarke quoted from that memo, which is dated 2 April. Was there just radio silence in the system between then and late August?

Mr McGarrity:
As you will appreciate, we had entered purdah then, and then there were further discussions on a range of planning issues, including energy and the Causeway site, and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment made that clear last week to Arlene Foster. However, from my perspective, 21 August was the first time that I heard that Seaport Investments Ltd was unlikely to win planning approval.

The Chairperson:
What is the status of the Tourist Board’s work on the visitor facility now?

Mr McGarrity:
We have to undertake a risk assessment to identify how to move forward on issues concerning the design team and the options analysis, and we need to consider the implications of the DOE Minister deciding, for whatever reason, not to follow through with her being minded to approve.

The Chairperson:
Who will carry out that assessment, and how long will it take?

Mr McGarrity:
That will be a matter for departmental officials, and I hope that it will not take long. As the Minister clarified last week, we met with representatives from the National Trust and Moyle District Council, and we will meet with representatives from Seaport Investments Ltd, which is the private-sector developer. Then we will decide how to move forward.

The Chairperson:
If the private-sector application existed all along, and you realised that, following devolution, a Minister of the Environment would take it upon herself to bring forward the project and prioritise a decision on it, should the Tourist Board not have engaged in a risk assessment at the point?

Mr McGarrity:
The question, when it comes to risk assessment, is how to identify risk. My opinion was that that application would not receive approval, and the Department would continue to work on the issue of value for money and the identification of the additional economic benefits that would come from its own project. Let me make this clear: the Department is not spending any further public money on its project, because it has been parked. The Department will review that situation when circumstances change.

The Chairperson:
What is the status of the comprehensive spending review in respect of the facility?

Mr McGarrity:
That is a matter for discussion in the Department, as the Minister outlined last week.

The Chairperson:
It is a time-sensitive issue.

Mr McGarrity:
It is. Those responsible for dealing with that in the Department are liaising with the Minister.

Mr McFarland:
Let me just try to get this clear: was the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Company, of which you are chief executive, set up to oversee the project for the Tourist Board, the National Trust and Moyle District Council? Is that right?

Mr McGarrity:
No. That was to be the delivery vehicle through which the funding would be used to deliver the project.

Mr McFarland:
So it is just for funding?

Mr McGarrity:
Yes. It will be the owner and promoter of the centre.

Mr McFarland:
Are the other groups just partners of that company? Is that right?

Mr McGarrity:
The rationale and thinking at the beginning of this process was that the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Company would be involved as a director and owner of the centre, but with the others contributing, making it a three-way partnership. However, the advice from the local government auditor prevented Moyle District Council from assuming directorship of third-party organisations, and it could not join. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate to include the others.

Mr McFarland:
Who else is involved in the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Company? I know that you are chief executive.

Mr McGarrity:
There is a board of directors.

Mr McFarland:
Who are they?

Mr A Clarke:
The chairman is the Tourist Board chairman, Tom McGrath.

Mr McFarland:
So the Tourist Board is a partner?

Mr A Clarke:
The Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Company is a subsidiary company of NITB. There was originally departmental representation from Robin McMinnis and, more recently, Noel Cornick; recently, two NITB board members, John Mooney and Aideen Corr were taken on as directors.

Mr McFarland:
That is, in effect, the Tourist Board.

Mr A Clarke:
It is a subsidiary company with departmental representation.

Mr McFarland:
Is there a conflict of interest between your roles as a departmental civil servant and chief executive of the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Company? I am not suggesting that there is.

Mr McGarrity:
I am not aware of one. When the company was established, it was the vehicle through which public funding would have been used to deliver the project. It was never intended that the company would be populated solely by Tourist Board members or departmental members. The idea was to get other directors on board.

The Chairperson:
Were the partners also on the board?

Mr McGarrity:
Yes. To be clear, the idea was that we set up, as is done in any adviser group, a charitable trust, which offers charitable status. Partners and trustees board of directors, and therefore it was not appropriate to include the National Trust.

Mr McFarland:
A number of briefings from the Department and the Tourist Board have stated that the Giant’s Causeway is a major landmark — big and important. Who was driving that process? Where did the oomph come from — was it from the Department, with the Tourist Board joining in? Or was the Tourist Board driving that process? It worries me that surrender came very quickly. The Department and the Tourist Board briefed this Committee on how vital the project was, and yet they rolled over quite quickly, given the importance that was placed on the project during the briefing period. Was DETI in there, pushing the case? Were you, as chief executive, on behalf of the Department, charging in, or was it a Tourist Board charge, to which the Department lent its support? Where was the drive coming from?

Mr A Clarke:
It was jointly driven. I have already explained the importance of the signature project to tourism. It was one of five projects, and it had three strands. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment presented the Causeway master plan for the wider area in 2003-04, and we implemented it. The visitor centre was one of the project’s three strands, and, because of the advice given by previous Ministers that Mr McGarrity referred to, it was seen as something on which the Department and the NITB would lead with other partners. As Mr McGarrity explained, the most effective way of doing that was through the Giant’s Causeway Visitor Facilities Limited as a subsidiary company. So the Tourist Board and the Department were both involved in driving the visitor centre forward.

We conducted a scoping study on the visitor centre before the process started — in 2002 or 2003 — so we both saw that as vital. Mr McGarrity and his team were responsible for the operational work, and we were more involved in the interpretation of visitor needs. Mr McGarrity dealt more with the construction and operational work. The Tourist Board was more concerned with dealing with the whole story and considering how the project would fit within the wider Causeway master plan. We were not duplicating work; rather, we were complementing each other.

Mr McFarland:
The EHS is a watchdog body. Its job is to protect the country’s family jewels and assets. In 2002, the EHS objected strongly to the Seaport Investments Ltd bid. Considering that you were the guardians of the project and that you spent four years driving it, are you not curious about what changed three weeks ago to enable consideration of a bid that had previously been blocked? After all, the Tourist Board had been moving the project forward. What changed? Have you asked the EHS whether it has changed its views? Under normal circumstances, any project to which the EHS objects does not go ahead. What happened to make the EHS change its mind? I presume that something has happened, because your pet project has been torpedoed.

Mr A Clarke:
We are not curious in that way. It is a fact of life that the Minister made a statement in which she said that she is minded to move in the way she is minded to move. You asked earlier why DETI and the Tourist Board were charging ahead with a public-sector project, but, as Mr McGarrity said, the indication from early days was that there was likely to be a favour towards brownfield development rather than greenfield. We were moving on that assumption.

Mr McFarland:
If I had been in charge of the project, I would have asked my Minister to find out what had changed. You have spent a lot of your life on this. Life is short enough, and you have spent a whole chunk of your life bringing this project forward. However, in the wink of an eye — on a Monday afternoon — four years of your life go straight out the window. I am worried that nobody is curious about why something that was dead in the water in 2002 is now being progressed. The planning application was not going anywhere, so direct rule Ministers started a whole new project in which you were involved. However, it was stopped suddenly, and the work that you were involved in for the past four years may as well not have happened.

Mr A Clarke:
The aspiration to deliver a world-class visitor centre still exists, but it is a question of who is best placed to deliver that.

Mr McFarland:
The EHS said that that bid does not do it.

The Chairperson:
Are you confident that Seaport Investments Ltd can do it?

Mr A Clarke:
We need to look at the application — as and when it is approved by Planning Service.

The Chairperson:
You said “as and when it is approved”. Is there no “if” any more?

Mr A Clarke:
There is an “if”, because the Minister is merely “minded” to approve the project. Approval has not yet been granted. In 2002 — when Moyle District Council conducted its best-value study — I was aware of the projects being submitted by the National Trust and Seaport Investments Ltd. My recollection is that the quality of both applications was extremely high.

The Chairperson:
Are you familiar with the criteria set down by UNESCO?

Mr Clarke:
No, I am not.

The Chairperson:
You are not?

Mr Clarke:
I am not familiar with the criteria for world heritage site status. I am aware of the general principles regarding the causeway and the 4 km zone.

The Chairperson:
The criteria were meant to be material considerations in the proposal for the visitors’ facility, surely?

Mr Clarke:
We were full partners in the world heritage site management plan, so I am aware of the principles of that plan; however, I am not aware of the detailed criteria for world heritage site status. I am aware of the criteria for the world heritage site management plan and the planning implications with regard to the world heritage site and the 4 km zone. I am aware of local planning issues — the northern area plan, for example, and the world heritage site dimension of that.

The Chairperson:
Was it your understanding that the Planning Service’s hesitation over Seaport Investments Ltd was related to the fact that it was a greenfield site? Is that what you understood the issue to be?

Mr Clarke:
There was the assumption, more than anything else, that there would be a greater approach towards getting development on a brownfield site rather than on a greenfield site.

The Chairperson:
Mr McGarrity, you were at the meeting on 28 March. What was your understanding of the grounds on which Planning Service and EHS declined planning approval for the Seaport Investments Ltd application?

Mr McGarrity:
I echo what Mr Clarke said. Our competition brief was to focus on brownfield development. That was the principle of the competition brief, and that was the principle that we worked on, in consultation with the other stakeholders, particularly the National Trust. We knew that it would have opposed a greenfield site. That is why we did not put a car park straight in front of the hotel, as we could have done. We could have had our application in last year. The point was made as to why we had to wait for the approval of 400 spaces. We wanted to submit an application that enjoyed the full support of all the stakeholders. If you go into a planning process with one of the key partners not giving it their full support, then you should be prepared for a protracted public inquiry, or whatever, and perhaps a judicial review.

The Chairperson:
To go back to Mr Clarke’s earlier point, what were you expecting to follow from a decision not to approve? What did you expect the circumstances to be? Did you think that you would not be able to move forward until an appeal was heard?

Mr McGarrity:
That is a matter for Planning Service. As I understand it, you can move forward even if an appeal has been made to the Planning Appeals Commission.

The Chairperson:
What do you mean? Who can go forward?

Mr McGarrity:
You can submit another planning application. The decision to proceed would have to be made by the Minister, but that can be done. We had an issue moving forward. We had to demonstrate the need for the additional money. The amount would rise from £14 million, which was a cost to the economy and would require approval from the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). It believed that such expenditure was appropriate in those circumstances where nothing else could be delivered and taking into account all the non-monetary benefits. We then had to go back and inform DFP that the amount had risen to £21 million or £21·5 million, depending on what Moyle District Council wanted from its car park, and it wanted, among other things, a new pavilion. We had to demonstrate the additional economic benefit that would have resulted from that project. That was a major challenge — and it still remains a challenge if the public-sector proposal goes forward.

Mr P Maskey:
I have a couple of questions for Mr Clarke. You answered a few questions that Robin Newton asked earlier about value for money and it having no detrimental effect to the world heritage site. I take it that you have studied Seaport Investments Ltd’s plans as well as its business plans. Maybe you have studied them in depth.

Mr A Clarke:
No.

Mr P Maskey:
You said that you had not seen anything relating to value for money.

Mr A Clarke:
I was not aware of any undermining of those principles.

Mr P Maskey:
You have not studied any business plans, but you are willing to say that it was a good proposal.

Mr A Clarke:
No, I do not think that I said that. Mr Newton was asking about the principles and whether we had any fear that they would be undermined, and I said that I was not aware of any indications.

Mr P Maskey:
You can answer that without studying the material?

Mr A Clarke:
I am not aware of anything that would do that. The process is ongoing, and the planning application has not been determined. Any approach to us will, in due course, be determined on its merits.

Mr P Maskey:
Do you think that the current Seaport Investments Ltd application is good for the Causeway and good for tourism in the North?

Mr A Clarke:
I have not studied the current application.

The Chairperson:
Ciaran, you indicated that it was around 23 August 2007 that you became aware that the Minister of the Environment was going to take the Seaport Investments Ltd application forward.

Mr McGarrity:
I understood that she was moving forward to a position where she was going to be minded to approve.

The Chairperson:
Yes, she was taking the project forward.

Mr McGarrity:
She was moving forward to a position where she was outlining her thoughts and the merits, rather than —

The Chairperson:
She was bringing the project forward.

Mr McGarrity:
She was advancing the planning application if that is —

The Chaiperson:
Are you uncomfortable with the thought that she brought the project forward?

Mr McGarrity:
She made an announcement on it.

The Chairperson:
Is it fair to say that she brought the project forward?

Mr McGarrity:
Do you mean the Seaport Investments Ltd application?

The Chairperson:
It is fair to say that. You seem a bit neuralgic about the terms.

Please indicate the possible timescales for when officials, either yourself, and/or the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, were briefing the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in relation to the visitor facility and the whole Giant’s Causeway project?

Mr McGarrity:
That would have been part of the Minister’s first day brief.

The Chairperson:
Were there any other briefings?

Mr McGarrity:
Yes, he would have been briefed again regarding some Assembly questions that were lodged at the end of June or start of July asking why there was a delay in addressing the issues. There was a briefing around that time. There were also some correspondence cases — and the National Trust was seeking a meeting around the end of July.

The Chairperson:
Were there any other briefings? Was the last briefing in July?

Mr McGarrity:
That was the last one prior to the announcement. As far as I recall, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was on leave for three weeks around mid-August.

The Chairperson:
Up until the announcement? When was the briefing on the announcement?

Mr McGarrity:
We may have discussed it with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on the Friday. I am not sure whether it was a face-to-face discussion or whether Stephen spoke to the Minister via the telephone.

The Chairperson:
You are not sure whether it was a telephone conversion or a face-to-face discussion? You would remember the difference, would you not?

Mr McGarrity:
I was not at any briefing on the Friday. However, I am sure —

The Chairperson:
You were not at any briefing on the Friday?

Mr McGarrity:
Not with the Minister; not that I can recall, on the seventh.

The Chairperson:
Were you asked to brief other departmental officials on the Friday?

Mr McGarrity:
We were certainly discussing the matter on the Friday. We were discussing preparing a press statement that would follow on —

The Chairperson:
That would have been on the basis that you were aware that the Minister of the Environment was finalising a statement?

Mr McGarrity:
We had seen the draft announcement and we were then preparing a statement to follow on from that.

The Chairperson:
So, you were not asked for your advice on that? I assume you were advised as to what the Minister of the Environment was minded to do at that stage?

Mr McGarrity:
From the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s position, it was clear that — having seen what the Minister of the Environment was prepared to say — there was no need, in those circumstances, for us to proceed with any further public expenditure. That was evident. The need to commit further expenditure on progressing the car park application or completing the environmental impact assessment, while the Minister had made her views known regarding —

The Chairperson:
You clearly had expectations based on the Minister of the Environment’s draft statement. You clearly had the expectation that planning permission was going to be granted.

Mr McGarrity:
Expectations followed on from reading the Minister’s statement that she was minded to give outline approval.

The Chairperson:
Were you confident that that project, which, until then, you thought was not going to get planning permission, was going to meet all of the other requirements that had been set by the Government and UNESCO?

Mr McGarrity:
You are asking me to comment on whether that planning application will meet UNESCO requirements. I cannot say whether it will. That is not a matter for me or the Department; it is a matter for planners.

The Chairperson:
Did you have confidence in the business plan?

Mr McGarrity:
I have not seen the business plan. I said that to the Committee already: I would not have any reason to see the business plan.

The Chairperson:
Knowing the other material considerations, are you confident that the Seaport Investments Ltd development was able to tick the same boxes that your project did?

Mr McGarrity:
My key considerations were the planning, access and sustainability issues, which are within the remit of the Planning Service to give an opinion on. It is not for me to comment on whether it does or does not.

The Chairperson:
But, did you have confidence?

Mr McGarrity:
It is not for me to have confidence or not. Whether the private-sector proposal should be built on that site, to that scale and with that functionality is for the Planning Service. It is not for me, or any DETI or NITB official, to comment on the size or scale of —

The Chairperson:
Of the other application.

Mr McGarrity:
Yes, on the planning aspects.

The Chairperson:
Were you invited to comment on whether the other application served the purposes of tourism policy?

Mr McGarrity:
I go back to my point that the application that was submitted was for a visitors’ centre. The key components of that proposed centre mirrored our plan; it was bigger but had the same visitor facilities. It is nothing more than a visitors’ centre — there to provide services.

As to confidence and delivering what the visitor expect, if the centre is the same as our own, then, yes, that plan could deliver those services. The other issues that you mentioned stray into the question of whether it should be built there and what size it should be. Those are planning issues.

The Chairperson:
Yes, but who did you express confidence to?

Mr McGarrity:
It was not a matter of expressing confidence to anyone. I was not asked whether I was confident.

The Chairperson:
You told us on 11 September that you had expressed confidence in that application.

Mr McGarrity:
I do not think that I said —

The Chairperson:
In response to the question:

“On the basis that you are as aware of the same detail as the general public, has the Department taken a decision that it has absolute confidence in the fact that this project will deliver the world-class outcome that we are talking about?”

Your answer was:

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

You expressed confidence in the application — to whom and when?

Mr McGarrity:
I do not recall. The expression of confidence —

The Chairperson:
It was in your mind a couple of weeks ago.

Mr McGarrity:
Perhaps in discussions at the time. I do not recall.

The Chairperson:
You do not recall.

Mr McGarrity:
To whom.

The Chairperson:
The last briefing that you directly recall having with the Minister was at the end of July. You then had some discussion with officials, but you cannot remember whether that was face to face or on the phone.

Mr McGarrity:
I spoke face to face with officials.

The Chairperson:
Which officials?

Mr McGarrity:
Stephen Quinn.

The Chairperson:
When was that?

Mr McGarrity:
Friday 7 September.

The Chairperson:
Was that face to face or on the phone?

Mr McGarrity:
Face to face.

The Chairperson:
Face to face. Was there some phone contact preceding that?

Mr McGarrity:
I am sure there was.

The Chairperson:
Was the Minister’s special adviser present at the briefing that you gave to the Minister?

Mr McGarrity:
I was only present at one briefing in Parliament Buildings. He was not there.

The Chairperson:
Did you have any other contact or did the special adviser seek any other briefings?

Mr McGarrity:
Not that I recall.

The Chairperson:
Did you receive any representations from anyone else?

Mr McGarrity:
I am not aware of any other representations to me. I presume you mean lobbying on behalf of Seaport Investments Ltd, as opposed to our project.

The Chairperson:
Or against your project?

Mr McGarrity:
People at council level, and outside of the council, have said to me that our project is not the best way forward. That has been common knowledge since we got involved in this project.

The Chairperson:
Several members have raised the car-park planning issue.

May we return to the difference between the 200 and the 400 car-parking spaces? I inferred from your earlier presentation that you assume that the Minister with responsibility for planning is relying on the existing 200 spaces in Moyle District Council’s property in addition to the 200 spaces provided for in the Seaport Investments Ltd proposals.

Mr McGarrity:
To be clear, those figures are in the planning application by Seaport Investments Ltd, which addressed transport and access. That application states that the proposals will deliver 200 parking spaces, and the remaining 200 will be in the existing car park. Therefore, it is not an assumption; it is based on the proposals in the Seaport Investments Ltd application.

The Chairperson:
Yes, but the application made the assumption that those 200 spaces would be available, in addition to the 200 spaces that Seaport Investments Ltd would provide. The application made presumptions about use of the other site.

Mr McGarrity:
Yes.

The Chairperson:
In your reply to Sean Neeson, at no stage did you say whether the possibility of using some of the land owned by Seaport Investments Ltd was considered as a solution to the car-parking problem that the Department’s project faced.

Mr McGarrity:
The land owned by Seaport Investments Ltd is a greenfield site. The National Trust’s — and the Department’s — principle in the competition brief was for the development of a brownfield site. The easiest solution for the Department was not to go to Seaport Investments Ltd for land, but go to Moyle District Council, since it owns the land in front of the hotel. If you visit the Giant’s Causeway on a busy day in August, you will see that it opens its field. That is the easiest and most cost-effective solution.

A visitors’ centre in Bushmills would incur between £250,000 and £275,000 annually in running costs. A capital injection — for development of the car park, moving a football pitch, and perhaps providing for changing-room facilities — of more than £1 million would be needed. The easiest solution — whether it would have been the best one is another issue — would not have enjoyed the support of the National Trust. The National Trust could veto a proposal by saying that it was not part of the Department’s solution and that it wanted to stay in its teahouse.

Mr McFarland:
Ciaran is obviously bound by departmental protocol and has to be very careful about what he says.

[Laughter.]

Mr McFarland:
Alan is not. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board is charged with attracting tourists and looking after them, and therefore the Giant’s Causeway visitors’ centre is an important issue for it. Does the Seaport Investments Ltd application impress you?

Mr A Clarke:
As I said to Paul, I have not looked at the application recently. As far as I can recall, the last time I looked at the Seaport Investments Ltd application was at the time of the Moyle best-value study, which is probably about four years ago.

Mr McFarland:
Presumably, the application is the same as it was in 2002 — I am not aware of its being modified.

Mr A Clarke:
As I said earlier, my recollection of that application, and the one submitted by the National Trust, was that both were of high quality.

Mr McFarland:
Are you saying that if the Seaport Investments Ltd application is given the nod by the Minister, that is good enough for the Tourist Board?

Mr A Clarke:
If the Seaport Investments Ltd application were given planning permission, it could apply for grant assistance from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, which would then be evaluated alongside the necessary criteria the same as any other application. We would then seek to achieve the aspirations that we have for the project through that application.

Mr McFarland:
The Environment and Heritage Service has objected to the proposals by Seaport Investments Ltd, as they do not meet its criteria. Why is the Tourist Board happy with it?

Mr A Clarke:
I am not aware of the Environment and Heritage Service’s issues with the application. The Tourist Board evaluates an application from a tourism need and facility viewpoint; whether the application would deliver a world-class visitors’ centre for the Giant’s Causeway. We would like the visitors’ centre to increase the length-of-stay value and the economic impact of the Giant’s Causeway. We want proposals that deliver a very good visitor experience; the lessons learned from last year’s research — which I outlined earlier — would be part of any project so that it delivered what visitors require. We would also want that project to maximise the economic impact for the area.

Mr McFarland:
Last week, we heard evidence that the Seaport Investments Ltd proposal did not meet the criteria for a world heritage site. How can you be comfortable with a project that does not meet the criteria and, therefore, is likely to remove the world heritage status, which is one of your key babies, from the Giant’s Causeway? I cannot understand why you think that that is OK.

The Chairperson:
The Committee heard that view that week, not that verdict.

Mr McFarland:
We heard from the National Trust, which is one of the gems in our firmament, that the Seaport proposal does not tick the boxes and does not meet the criteria for a world heritage site. How can the Northern Ireland Tourist Board be comfortable with a project that, in the National Trust’s opinion, does not meet world heritage status and could result in the loss of that status? We do not know that it would, but it is possible.

Mr A Clarke:
I do not say that I am comfortable with that. We would have to test that through the appraisal process for the project. If you ask me whether I think that world heritage site status is important for the Giant’s Causeway, I do.

Mr McFarland:
Given the Tourist Board’s interest in the Giant’s Causeway, you will be aware that when Seaport Investments Ltd. first submitted its plan, a hotel and golf course or something similar was supposedly mentioned in connection with the visitor centre. Are you aware of that, or of any other applications relating to the Giant’s Causeway site? Peter Curistan’s bid was to build the visitor centre and then build some hotels to pay for it; it would be free to the nation. Were there any bids in 2002 that included golf courses and so forth?

The Chairperson:
I am not sure that the concept to which you have just referred was in the form of a bid. Be careful with the language that you use, Mr McFarland, in case you confuse us.

Mr McFarland:
Sorry. I was simply saying that, for example, it was reported that Mr Curistan planned to pay for the visitor centre through commercial building and that the centre would be constructed free of charge.

In 2002, newspapers reported that the original Seaport bid was connected to the building of a golf course and hotels and was designed to turn the area into a major tourist attraction, and the thinking behind that is understandable. Mr Clarke, what do you know about any similar project designed to turn the Giant’s Causeway into a major tourism project to allow people to visit the Causeway, stay in a hotel and play a bit of golf or whatever?

Mr A Clarke:
My recollection is that there were several planning applications, not all of which were connected to the Seaport proposal. From memory, there was a planning application from Seaport for a building at the Causeway.

Mr McFarland:
As a matter of interest, where was that going to be?

Mr A Clarke:
You need to check that with the Planning Service.

The Chairperson:
OK, the Committee needs to check that out.

Mr A Clarke:
From memory, Seaport Investments Ltd submitted a planning application for an arts centre.

Mr McFarland:
Was that a separate application linked to the schoolhouse or somewhere?

The Chairperson:
I am sure that that would have been very artful.

Mr A Clarke:
I think that it was near the railway.

There was also a totally separate — and probably unconnected application — from a different developer for a golf course and hotel development at Runkerry, which is on the edge of the 4km zone. That application may be ongoing.

Mr McFarland:
Is Runkerry owned by Seaport?

Mr A Clarke:
I am not aware that it is.

The Chairperson:
Well, we do not know; it is just speculation.

Mr A Clarke:
My indication — and it is only an indication — is that it is owned by the MacNaghten Estate, but I could be wrong.

Mr McFarland:
Can that be checked?

The Chairperson:
The Committee should discuss the issues on which it is seeking information and advice afterwards, rather than noting, as it goes along, that it needs to check this and that.

Mr A Clarke:
A lot of water has gone under the bridge as regards the whole issue. However, you might be referring to the concept put forward by the University of Ulster for a holiday village around the Causeway. It was called a “concept”, rather than a bid or a project: that was an academic approach.

The Chairperson:
With regard to the proposal for a golf course, you have indicated that were aware of the proposal, but did not have any details.

Mr A Clarke:
I was aware of that development. I was more aware of that than I was of the application for the hotel and arts centre. I remember those applications but I was not deeply involved in them. I was more involved in the golf course application than in the hotel development.

The Chairperson:
Had you been asked for your views on the golf course at any time?

Mr A Clarke:
Absolutely. The proposal was for a golf course and perhaps 75 cottages and a hotel development at Runkerry, on the edge of the four kilometre zone.

The Chairperson:
Had the Tourist Board taken a view on that?

Mr A Clarke:
They supported it.

The Chairperson:
Did you understand that the Planning Service and EHS would have been reluctant to accept that?

Mr A Clarke:
Absolutely.

The Chairperson:
Were they nervous about that proposal?

Mr A Clarke:
The Planning Service was not as nervous about it as the EHS. I had discussions about that proposal with both organisations about that application. I also discussed it with the National Trust and with the applicant. Therefore, I was well aware of that application.

The Chairperson:
What is the present status of the application?

Mr Clarke:
I am not sure. The application was submitted, but may have been withdrawn recently. Therefore, whether the planning application is still being considered, I cannot recall. Revised drawings were made in the past six months, but I am not sure whether those have been resubmitted for a new planning application or for an amendment. The project is live.

The Chairperson:
Ciaran, during your discussions with the Planning Service, the EHS or with direct rule Ministers, would the prospect of the golf course development have been a factor in their deliberations to refuse the Seaport application?

Mr McGarrity:
No. EHS and the Planning Service were very clear. This goes back to the parameters of the competition brief that were issued, which were that our development was on the basis of a nine-acre brownfield site. That is what the Moyle District Council land comprises. As regards car parking, the issue was whether we used the field in front of the Moyle Hotel for a 200-space, black-top or “grass-creted” car park.

The Chairperson:
Is it fair to say that the only reason EHS was minded to be against the Seaport Investments application was the greenfield issue?

Mr McGarrity:
Sorry. I was unaware of the EHS position until I saw the press article you passed around.

The Chairperson:
Were you not at the meeting with EHS on 28 March, about which Noel wrote his note?

Mr McGarrity:
Yes. However, the key issue for us at the 28 March meeting was greenfield.

The Chairperson:
So greenfield was the crucial issue for the EHS, and is not simply a hang-up of the National Trust, which is what you were implying earlier. Greenfield was not just a wee National Trust foible, was it?

Mr McGarrity:
It was not just a wee National Trust foible, in all fairness. It was an issue on which my Department agreed. Were it just a foible, we would have extended the competition brief to include that field but we did not do that.

The Chairperson:
So the Department agreed with sensitivity over the Greenfield issue?

Mr McGarrity:
We did. I said at the start to you —

The Chairperson:
But you have got over that now.

Mr McGarrity:
The principle in moving forward with our partners was in developing a brownfield site. Whether a planning application should have been approved for anywhere else is a matter for the Planning Service and the Minister to judge.

Mr A Clarke:
Mr McFarland used the term “connected”. It may be worth emphasising that the Tourist Board’s support of the application for the golf development was not seen in any way as being directly connected to the visitor centre. It had relevance in terms of planning, because it was on the edge of the four-kilometre zone of the world heritage site, but the support of the Tourist Board was based on the need for a four-star hotel and golf-course development on the north coast, rather than on any connection with a visitor centre.

Mr McFarland:
Runkerry is just off the edge of the map that you have provided. What do you mean when you say that it is on the edge of the four-kilometre zone? Is that four kilometres from the far end of the Giant’s Causeway?

Mr A Clarke:
There is a four-kilometre world heritage site zone.

Mr McFarland:
Yes, but if I assume that the Giant’s Causeway starts at a certain point on the map, a distance of four kilometres would take me to the far side of Portballintrae. Runkerry is just off the edge of the map, about half a mile or three-quarters of a mile away.

Mr A Clarke:
The developers have moved what you might call the physical buildings of that development towards Bushmills, so that they are pretty close to the edge of Bushfoot.

Mr McFarland:
It is well inside the four-kilometre zone; if you take the centre of the zone —

Mr A Clarke:
The golf course itself is inside, but the physical buildings, such as the clubhouse and the hotel development, have been moved more towards Bushmills, towards the edge of the zone.

Mr McFarland:
Where is the centre of the four-kilometre zone? Presumably the zone is a circle four kilometres around the centre of the Giant’s Causeway?

Mr A Clarke:
Yes. It is around the world heritage site.

Mr McFarland:
Yes, but where is that taken from? Is it from the centre of the Causeway?

Mr A Clarke:
As I understand it, yes.

Mr McFarland:
OK. So the Giant’s Causeway is, say, two kilometres long either side of its centre. If you are going to walk it, it is about four or five kilometres or so along the coast. Is that right?

The Chairperson:
Brussels allows you to say “miles” now, if you want.

Mr McFarland:
So this is two kilometres from the centre of the zone. Runkerry is well within the four-kilometre zone, unless you take the start of the zone to be the far end of the Giant’s Causeway.

Mr A Clarke:
As I understand it, the golf-course development, the clubhouse and the hotel are on the periphery of the four-kilometre zone, towards Bushmills.

Mr McFarland:
Will you have a look at that for us? Four kilometres from where? Runkerry House is just off the edge of the map. If 74 houses and a golf course are built on the proposed location, it puts them right up against the edge.

The Chairperson:
We will have to have a discussion about the material importance of some of those dimensions. There are other considerations.

Mr A Clarke:
The connection is in planning within the four-kilometre zone. The connection as regards tourism need is discrete.

Mr McFarland:
If you build a complex of 74 houses, a hotel and a golf course at the proposed location, the project becomes enormous. Your tourist attraction is actually an integral part of any development, which is presumably why you support it.

Mr A Clarke:
No. We support the golf-course development because 18 months ago we identified the need for a golf-resort development to take golf tourism forward. The proposal by a private-sector developer for a project at Runkerry was already on the table. Several Northern Ireland golf resorts are currently at the development stage. We supported the Runkerry development because it offered us the only available opportunity for a new international golf links course; the rest were parkland courses.

Mr McFarland:
An 18-hole international course between there and Bushmills?

Mr A Clarke:
It runs towards —

Mr McFarland:
I am sorry; I am familiar with international golf courses.

Mr A Clarke:
I am not a golfer.

Mr McFarland:
That would wipe out the area between the Giant’s Causeway and Bushfoot golf course, which is just on the other side of Bushmills. There are constant golf courses from Portballintrae to the Giant’s Causeway, and if an 18-hole international golf course were built, it would be right up by the railway, at its farthest out. The whole complex is changed if something of that size is built, along with 74 houses and a hotel right on the doorstep.

Mr A Clarke:
In using the word “connection” I am just trying to clarify that they are distinct options.

Mr McFarland:
The planning applications are distinct. My point is that if I were to look down on the area from an aeroplane, I would see one whole complex stretching from Portballintrae, joining up Bushmills with two golf courses, and ending at the Giant’s Causeway, forming a major tourist attraction. I am not objecting to it.

Mr A Clarke:
Nor are we. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson:
It sounds like you might be “minded”.

Mr McFarland:
I am just trying to get a clear picture. Part of the problem is that we are dealing with lots of smoke and mirrors. Since we heard the original briefings from the Department and the Tourist Board, in the three meetings previous to this, we have had a fair bit of ratcheting to do. We have had lever out the issues a fair bit to work out what is what. I am simply worried that we are still not seeing the full picture.

Mr A Clarke:
I am trying to clarify the Tourist Board’s point of view. You asked whether the golf course and the hotel development were connected with Seaport Investments Ltd’s application. I was trying to clarify that in our view they are not — the two applications are distinct from each other.

Mr McFarland:
That may be the case, but are they connected to the Tourist Board? The answer is obviously yes, in that the Tourist Board supports both proposals, one of which is on the doorstep of the other and which would establish a fairly major complex that would bring in tourists.

Mr A Clarke:
We have supported only the hotel and golf course development.

Mr McFarland:
Yes, but you support the building of a visitors’ centre, too.

Mr A Clarke:
Yes.

Mr McFarland:
Therefore, you support the building of a visitors’ centre and the development of the golf course, which will, in effect, create a big tourist complex.

Mr A Clarke:
The developer has moved much more of the physical aspects of the development towards Bushmills. It is a question of how environmentally sensitive and friendly you consider a golf course to be.

The Chairperson:
When will the Committee be apprised of the outcome of the risk assessment that the Department is to carry out?

Mr McGarrity:
I cannot give a definite date; all I can say is that it will be as soon as is practicable. Obviously, the Department has some work to do with the Minister, and, following that, I imagine that I will be able to share that information with the Committee.

The Chairperson:
The risk assessment will determine how far you preserve the possibility of the Giant’s Causeway visitors’ facility project. Is that right?

Mr McGarrity:
We will look at the steps that we should now take and the steps that we might have to take —

The Chairperson:
The steps that you might have to take to protect that option, in case the Environment Minister changes her mind, or Seaport Investments Ltd changes its mind, for example.

Mr McGarrity:
We also have to carry out further work to demonstrate value for money should a public-sector solution proceed; as I said earlier, additionality must be demonstrated.

The Chairperson:
You have already presented the proposal to DFP, and you got, if not always a green light, at least an amber light. Given that, what kind of case did you make for revenue projections and the economic benefits of the proposal?

Mr McGarrity:
The revenue projections did not change that much from what we proposed previously. The key issue was how to demonstrate that £21 million was needed to deliver the same benefits. The point has been made laboriously — probably by yourselves too — that it is possible to get the same economic benefits from a centre that is half the size. That is where the non-monetary benefits come in to play; that is why the Guggenheim and so on exist — international competitions cost money.

The Chairperson:
The figures that we were given earlier show that 68% of people believe that it is a significant motivating attraction.

Mr McGarrity:
Does that refer to the Causeway, rather than the centre?

The Chairperson:
Yes; the causeway is a significant attraction. Given that figure, we could assume that it would not be too hard to ensure a decent revenue stream from a decent facility at the Causeway.

Mr McGarrity:
Demonstrating viability was never an issue, even with all the commitments that we had. The key issue was demonstrating that that amount of money was needed to deliver the project. One could simply build a big shop at the Causeway, and that would deliver more revenue. If you think back to our site, nearly a third of our building is dedicated to interpretation; however, that does not generate revenue.

If there is a small shop and café on the site, and if those are increased substantially in size, the amount of revenue that comes through the door increases also. However, that would be at the expense of interpretation, and that is not what we wanted. The key issue for us was the development of interpretation.

The principle point is: how do we demonstrate that public expenditure is required? In 2005, when we got approval from the Department of Finance and Personnel, it was required because there was no prospect of the centre being built by another party, and it was recognised by the Strategic Investment Board that a public-private partnership or a private finance initiative was not appropriate. If that is the case, the next step is to demonstrate that that is the minimum amount of money required to deliver those same objectives. It is an additionality issue. That is what we still have to prove, and it is extremely challenging.

The Chairperson:
Are you confident that that significant ratio of an interpretive element will be present in the other project also?

Mr McGarrity:
I have seen the dimensions. The centre is 50% bigger than that which we had proposed. It has a bigger restaurant and bigger catering facilities. However, it has approximately the same amount of interpretative facilities. It includes a library, an audio-visual room, or whatever they are described as in the outline planning application.

The Chairperson:
Would you be content with that sort of ratio, and the quality of the facilities?

Mr McGarrity:
Again, on the outline planning issue, that is what is going to go into the structure of the building. I hope that some of the good work that we have done will be included in its content.

The Chairperson:
If, and when, we get a formal planning decision, will the Giant’s Causeway visitors’ centre be formally and finally aborted as a project?

Mr McGarrity:
That will be a matter for the Minister.

The Chairperson:
The permanent secretary did not resile from the notion of the project having been aborted two weeks ago. Then the Minister took a different line last week. While it was not quite a U-turn, it was a J-turn. Will a formal decision to approve planning mean that the Giant’s Causeway visitors’ facility becomes a pending project?

Mr McGarrity:
You will appreciate that that will come through in the risk assessment of the project — what happens next; the implications of either decision; and what steps are needed to be taken to get through that. Ultimately, that will be a decision for the Minister.

The Chairperson:
What if we do not have an indication by the time final decisions are made on the comprehensive spending review (CSR), and if there is a bid, will that cover either, or both, projects?

Mr McGarrity:
What goes into CSR is a matter for discussion. The Minister made that clear last week. That is part of the risk assessment.

The Chairperson:
For discussion by whom, and when? We are asking about that now because the issue is relevant.

Mr McGarrity:
I appreciate that. That will have to be the determined in the Department before a judgement is made on it.

The Chairperson:
Alan, you mentioned earlier that if the other project goes ahead, the company might approach the Tourist Board.

Mr A Clarke:
I suppose that it is possible — for grant support.

The Chairperson:
Under what budget facility would it seek grants from the Tourist Board? Would an application be met from existing funds, or do you envisage that it might come to you for grant assistance under the significant funding that might come out of the CSR?

Mr A Clarke:
It is more likely to be under our tourism development scheme; there is a grant available for the provision of amenities. It is largely to do with visitor attractions and support to the signature projects, in the widest context, on the basis that accommodation development went to Invest Northern Ireland back in 2002. We look after people on the attraction side. Currently, we have around £1·5 million in that budget line each year, for all of Northern Ireland. Therefore, we do not have a vast amount of money.

The Chairperson:
In that situation, would the Tourist Board be asked for its advice on whether there should be a CSR bid covering facilities on the Giant’s Causeway site?

Mrs Kathryn Thomson ( Northern Ireland Tourist Board):
The process has been going on for quite a long time. We worked with the Department when putting in the bid for the existing resources. We have only £1·5 million each year in our budget. If we had an application that came in that was larger than that, we would need to discuss with the Department whether we were going to find that funding or not.

The Chairperson:
Have you been asked whether there should still be the significant comprehensive spending review bid that the Committee was briefed about?

Mrs Thomson:
We do not have an application that requires us to bid for resources.

The Chairperson:
Do you mean that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board does not have an application?

Mr A Clarke:
The Northern Ireland Tourist Board does not have an application from Seaport Investments Ltd. We identified our priorities for tourism, development and growth for the future in the comprehensive spending review bid.

The Chairperson:
What comprehensive spending review funding should there be to ensure world-class facilities suitable for a world heritage site at the Giant’s Causeway?

Mr A Clarke:
The comprehensive spending review bid was for this specific public-sector project. If the public-sector project does not proceed, we still have other important tourism priorities to bid for.

The Chairperson:
Would the comprehensive spending review make no provision for the Giant’s Causeway?

Mr A Clarke:
That is possible.

Mr McGarrity:
It may not answer your question, but much will depend on a risk assessment.

To reiterate what the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Mr Dodds said: there needs to be a strong case proved for a public bid. We were involved in case there was market failure; without market failure it is a difficult case to prove. The same test must be satisfied for the Department of Finance and Personnel, which will want to know why the private sector needs the additional money.

It is not an easy hurdle to clear. The Minister made that clear during the Adjournment debate and in the discussions with the Committee last week.

Mr McFarland:
I understand that the Minister said that the comprehensive spending review bid was still there.

Mr McGarrity:
Yes. It will be subject to further discussion.

The Chairperson:
What the Minister said was different from what the permanent secretary told the Committee on 11 September, was it not?

Mr McGarrity:
I cannot recall.

The Chairperson:
Would you like me to remind you?

Mr McGarrity:
I am sure that you will.

The Chairperson:
We were told that there would be an application.

Mr McGarrity:
I am sure that that is right, but I believe that he also said that there would be a risk assessment to determine what the final action would be.

The Chairperson:
I asked the permanent secretary Mr Quinn:
“You said that the proposal was bid for as part of the comprehensive spending review (CSR), and we saw in previous presentations that it was in the running. Does that mean that the proposal has now been dropped as a CSR bid?”

To which he replied:
“We will have to review that urgently in the circumstances created by the statement of the Minister with responsibility for planning.”

Two weeks have since passed, so I do not know how urgently “urgent” is. Then I enquired:

“It would seem a bit strange to bid for something that is gone and has been aborted.”

To which the permanent secretary replied:
“Intuitively, the provision that we saw for that public sector project will have to be removed.”

I asked:
“Does that mean that it will be removed, rather than its removal being considered?”

To which the permanent secretary replied, “Yes.”

And then I made the point:
“A minute ago, you said that it would have to be considered — now it is being removed.”

The permanent secretary replied:
“Yes. In these circumstances the obvious logical inference is that the bid must be withdrawn”

Do the Minister and the permanent secretary have different approaches to the problem?

Mr McGarrity:
I do not believe so. What is important is that the issue will be subject to consideration by the Department.

The Chairperson:
Nevertheless, there are clear differences. It proves the point that things were being couched differently for the Committee last week compared to what Committee members had heard previously and what was said in the Chamber.

I thank everyone for your patience during the delay and during the questions. There are other issues that the Committee must consider, and because we know that another Committee will also look at the matter, questions will arise on to how to run proceedings properly.

The phrase “joined-up Government” has been much used. The Assembly now has a test of joined-up scrutiny.