Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I welcome to the meeting Carál Ní Chuilín, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure; Dr Denis McMahon, the permanent secretary in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure; and Cynthia Smith, the deputy secretary in DCAL. I remind Committee members and witnesses of their obligation to declare any relevant financial or other interest in today's business. Oliver McMullan, Cathal Ó hOisín and Dominic Bradley have indicated that they are members of their local GAA club. Having welcomed you, Minister, I ask you to make your opening statement.

Ms Ní Chuilín (The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure): Thank you, Chair. I am not sure whether I need to declare an interest. I am not a member of a GAA club, but my family are involved in GAA and soccer.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That has been noted.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. It is just for the record.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Yes, we understand that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Before I make my opening remarks, I note that the Committee has an hour down for this. If it is helpful, I am available for at least 20 minutes after that before I have to go to an engagement· I anticipate being back before the Committee again anyway.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. Thank you, Chair and members, for agreeing to my attendance at the Committee. I was keen to address personally the concerns that have been raised and to update you on arrangements that I have put in place to address the issues. It is important that I make some points up front before I describe the arrangements. First, it is simply unthinkable that I would want to put people's lives at risk. It is worth remembering that the stadia programme is a commitment in the Executive's Programme for Government and is designed to bring social and economic benefits. That commitment applies every bit as much to Casement Park as it does to Windsor Park and the Kingspan Stadium. Casement Park is and will be of great benefit to those who play in it, to those who attend events there and to the people of west Belfast.

Safety is and must be at the heart of Casement. Of course, safety issues are discussed throughout the work on any capital project, and Casement Park is no exception. Concerns will arise at different points in the process: that is a given. The development of any major capital programme is a process, and, like many processes, it cannot be defined in advance. Any capital development process involves a series of key people: the organisation that commissions the project; the funder or funders; local people; the users of the capital asset; economists; finance people; and so on. It is also a given that all those people need to contribute to the project in question and bring their expertise to the table. Furthermore, given the range of experience and the diverse perspectives on each capital project — no matter what that project is — we can all be sure of one thing, which is that those people will not agree all the time. That is also a given. We need debate and dialogue to force the best possible project and programme.

I am here to tell you that safety is, was and always will be paramount in the delivery of the stadia programme. I announced the independent investigation into the concerns that have been raised about bullying. I also ordered a separate independent project assessment review to look at technical issues and advice on the appropriate way forward for Casement Park and the stadia programme. With your indulgence, Chair, I will give the Committee more information about those processes in a moment. I want to make the point that I am very happy for anyone to look at the programme openly and transparently. I am also happy to feed into the Committee's inquiry in whatever way I can. I hope that my doing so will add some objective, constructive analysis to the debate.

The investigation and review follows, as the Committee is aware, the briefing provided to members by the chair of the safety technical group (STG) on 30 April. I have announced my proposed course of action to investigate the concerns raised. Having listened carefully to the evidence presented to the Committee on 30 April, I believe that it is important to recognise that two distinct issues have been raised. One relates to the proposed design of the redevelopment of Casement Park and associated public safety requirements, while the other focuses on issues arising from specific grievances raised by that individual. Both will be dealt with in an open and transparent way through two distinct mechanisms, which I will now describe.

There will be an independent programme review. I have asked my officials to commission a full review of the project urgently, including independent specialist advice, as appropriate, that will draw on experts in the field of public safety. The purpose of the review is to look at the technical issues associated with the programme, and the Casement Park project in particular. The review will take the form of a project assessment review of the stadia programme. That is in line with good practice in the programme and for project management.

The review has been commissioned through the Central Procurement Directorate (CPD) in the Department of Finance and Personnel and will be taken forward by independent experts. The programme assessment review, although looking broadly at the stadia programme, will focus on the development of the design of the Casement Park project and compliance with statutory and good practice guidance and requirements, including health and safety. In line with normal practice, the review team will formally report to the Department. However, given the issues that have been raised, the report will also be published. Normal procedure is that the review will take 10 to 12 weeks to complete, although the assessment itself should last approximately five to 10 days, with reports to be written afterwards. In the light of the specific grievances raised at the Committee on 30 April, an independent investigation will be taken forward, consistent with whistle-blowing procedures.

Following consultation with DFP, and taking into account best practice, the issue is initially being scoped by the chief internal auditor for the Department of Education and DCAL. The chief internal auditor will consult with key parties before reporting to officials in DFP, who will consider how to take the process forward from that point.

The process will be taken forward in line with appropriate guidance on whistle-blowing. The process will be fully independent of DCAL officials who have been and are involved in the stadium programme. One key aspect of that is that we are very sensitive to the duty of care to protect and support the people who have raised concerns and who are directly involved in such cases. That, in turn, may mean that, while the process is ongoing, I am not able to respond to some of the proposed or specific questions about concerns that people may have. It important for me or anyone else not to pre-empt the process. It is also important to protect the person making the allegations and others involved.

I want to make it clear that actions that I have initiated involve two distinct areas of work. The process assessment review on the stadia programme is a bespoke, technically focused review. The investigation, in line with whistle-blowing procedures, will focus on the concerns and grievances raised at the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure hearing around allegations of bullying. We must be careful not to confuse the two.

I have asked my officials to engage fully with all key stakeholders, including the STG, and to provide the necessary assurance as the GAA moves forward to initiate a new consultation process for planning.

In conclusion, Chair and members, I want to provide assurance that I will keep the Committee fully apprised as the work that I commissioned progresses. The Committee will also be aware that, as well as writing to the Committee Chair, I have written separately to MLAs to update them on the stadia programme and to address the recent concerns that have been expressed.

As you will appreciate, due process needs to be followed, and we need to be aware of the sensitivities, as well as the legal and personnel issues, that may arise. I can, however, assure you all that the concerns will be thoroughly and comprehensively assessed and addressed. Go raibh míle maith agat.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you. A number of members want to ask questions, but I will start by touching on two areas. This is purely to establish the facts around them. I have read what has been in the newspapers, but, for clarity, will you tell us exactly when you first became aware of concerns about the safety of the stadium design when it came to emergency exiting?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I first became aware of the allegations relating to the claims that Mr Scott made to the Committee on 30 April and the extent to which those concerns were raised on that day. You may be aware that, as the three stadia programmes are progressed, a sponsor board meeting occurs in DCAL that consists of representatives from the GAA, the Irish Football Association (IFA) and rugby, as well as Sport NI. Safety is an ongoing issue, as are many other aspects, including planning, consultation, design, programme spend, timelines and targets. I anticipated that any real and pressing concerns would have been raised at those meetings with my officials or even at any opportunity after that. I am aware that safety is one of the issues that are constantly discussed, as it should be, so it would be strange if it were not, particularly given the scale of Casement Park. However, the first that I heard of the allegations that Mr Scott made to the Committee, about a Hillsborough-type concern, was on 30 April.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): You are saying that what was made clear on 30 April to you for the first time was the extent of the difficulties around emergency exiting. Am I right in assuming that, in the discussions about safety on the sponsor board, there had been mention of emergency exiting as an issue?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Absolutely, but that does not mean that advice given on an issue that needed to be brought to my attention was ignored or suppressed. Access and egress are paramount for safety, as are other arrangements that the STG will provide. I am certainly aware that the safety technical group, along with the governing bodies and others, would have been discussing safety. It is clear from the safety technical group's title that that is its job. However, I make it clear again that at no time did anyone tell me that there was a Hillsborough-type scenario in waiting and I did nothing about it.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): The issue for folk will probably be the distinction between a knowledge that there were issues around exiting in an emergency situation and the understanding of the extent of those.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Chair, I appreciate that. I assume that the balance will be something that the review and investigation will look at. I do not want to undermine or be disrespectful to that process, but had a serious issue been elevated to my level, I would have known about it and dealt with it.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): On the sponsor board, we had a set of papers sent to us from the Department, and that was very helpful, about the structure of all the different levels.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I understand from those papers that you chair the sponsor board.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is correct.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It set out that the role of the board is to report to the Minister on the progress of the programme, to provide a forum for the governing bodies to raise any issues, and to advise and support the programme SRO, who is the permanent secretary. "SRO" stands for?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Senior responsible officer.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you.

Ms Cynthia Smith (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure): To be clear, I am the senior responsible officer.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): In what we were given originally, it said that it was the permanent secretary, but it is you. That is fine.

Ms Smith: It was originally the permanent secretary. When that permanent secretary retired, I took over the role.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is fine. Thank you, Cynthia.

The membership of the sponsor board is set out in the paper. It consists of the Minister, the programme SRO and one representative from each sport. Others who attend include two representatives from each sport, and in the case of the GAA, those are Tom Daly and/or Danny Murphy. There is also the DCAL director of sport, Colin Watson; the programme director, Noel Molloy; Brett Hannam from the Strategic Investment Board (SIB); and Nick Harkness from Sport NI. It was also stated that the meetings would take place not less than quarterly. Noel Molloy left in January 2014. Who replaced him on the sponsor board?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Rory Miskelly, who I believe has been in front of the Committee.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Yes, he has been a number of times. Is Colin Watson still the director of sport?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Colin Watson retired almost two years ago.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Lucky man. Who has that position now?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Fergus Devitt.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Right, that is fine. If I remember correctly, Colin had a lot of interests in pigeons and other recreational pursuits.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, and other things.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I am sure that members will want to see copies of the minutes of the sponsor board meetings and any presentations or board papers that were circulated. We will ask for those in due course. Those are not on the internet. You have given us your recollection of how issues around safety were raised, but the indication that you are giving us is that it was not identified about the level of the —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Certainly not.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Agus go raibh maith agat as teacht anseo inniu. Thank you, Minister, for attending the meeting today. The safety issues have been raised and discussed a lot, and we all agree that safety is paramount. In any stadium development, safety concerns are a natural element of the agenda that will be undertaken. It was only on 30 April that we heard about those very serious safety concerns. Did Sport NI ever raise those with you, or did it ever advise you that there were very serious safety concerns?

Ms Ní Chuilín: The short answer is no, and, for that matter, nor did anyone else. You are right, and I said in my opening remarks and, indeed, in response to the Chair that safety is one of those issues that are ongoing. It was not raised by Sport NI to me to the level that it was serious, and, like Committee members, I learned of those levels of concern on 30 April.

Ms McCorley: Would there have been an opportunity for Sport NI to have raised it? Were you meeting Sport NI?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Sport NI is in attendance at the sponsor board meeting. I have certainly met it in between different sponsor board meetings. I have met Sport NI on a range of issues. I have met Sport NI at events, as you would expect. No one from Sport NI raised any issues of that nature with me.

Ms McCorley: To take that further, when Hillsborough was mentioned, that was the context that probably shocked everybody the most. We all know what happened and what a huge tragedy and disaster that was. When that was mentioned, I was wondering how that was coming up now and how that was the first that we had ever heard of it. Did Belfast City Council or Sport NI ever mention Hillsborough?

Ms Ní Chuilín: No, and I want to be careful. I repeat that this is not to be evasive or obstructive. Mr Scott came to the Committee and made some very serious allegations, and, as far as I am concerned, it is not up to me or anybody else to second-guess, challenge or unpick what he said. That is the job of the review and the investigation. At the risk of being repetitive, at no stage did anybody bring the scale of their concerns about safety to me, ever.

Ms McCorley: Those are the kinds of concerns that, if they were found to be well founded, would change the whole attitude.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The Committee will also be aware that, with Casement Park, Windsor Park and, indeed, Ravenhill, it is, at the end of the day, Belfast City Council that issues the final safety certificate for events. Usually, safety certificates are issued well in advance, but sometimes they are issued days in advance of an event. It is primarily the job of the programme assessment review to establish that and, indeed, in relation to the concerns that Mr Scott raised at the Committee on 30 April, it is for the independent investigation team and this Committee to establish.

Ms McCorley: I wanted to get that clarified, because, as you know, Casement Park is in my constituency. One of the local people raised it with me before I had heard about it and said that you knew about the concerns. I was shocked. I said that I did not think that that could be true. I am clear that you did not hear about that and that —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Absolutely not.

Ms McCorley: When can we expect the two processes that you talked about to conclude?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Denis, would you like to answer that?

Dr Denis McMahon (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure): The first process —

Ms Ní Chuilín: They are completely independent of each other.

Dr McMahon: The independent investigation is being scoped. What that means is that, in line with the process for whistle-blowing, the auditor is talking to Mr Scott and anybody else whom it is felt that it is necessary to talk to at this stage to scope out the scale of the issues. The auditor will then report back, probably through the permanent secretary in DFP, who will take a view on what further work needs to be done, and that could be a further investigation. It is therefore not possible to be definitive about the timescale, but I expect that the early scoping work will be done in the next week. Following that, it will really depend on what DFP thinks most appropriate. The project assessment review normally takes place, as the Minister said, over a 12-week period —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Ten to 12 weeks.

Dr McMahon: — and we hope that that will start in June.

Ms Smith: Yes, we hope that the team will start its actual review work in June. It normally takes five to 10 days to conduct the review and then some time to write up the report. As the Minister indicated, that report will be published.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I just want to follow on from the point made by Rosie McCorley. Can you clarify whether it was ever mentioned at the sponsor board that the proposed design for Casement Park would make it impossible to meet the eight-minute evacuation time set out in the guidebooks? [Inaudible.]

Ms Ní Chuilín: no.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you.

Mr McMullan: You are very welcome, Minister. You will be aware that, on 30 April, Mr Paul Scott reported to the Committee that he had expressed concerns in 2009 about a 40,000 capacity for Casement Park. Are you aware of that, and can you give the Committee an explanation of why those concerns were raised and, if true, why they were not taken on board in 2009?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I am not aware of concerns being raised as far back as 2009, or since. I know that in 2009 the proposal was for a capacity of 40,000. I am reluctant to bring the Chair in, given that he was my predecessor in the Department. Needless to say, because that allegation was made, it will form part of the review and, indeed, the investigation. Not in 2009 or since was I aware that those concerns had been raised.

Mr McMullan: Can you clarify whether the STG was established and operational without terms of reference? Presumably, there were no terms of reference for Windsor or Kingspan either.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The STG was formally established in 2012. Yes, it has been operational without terms of reference for the three governing bodies. The STG plays a very important role, particularly in conjunction with Belfast City Council around safety and safety certificates. It is, of course, Belfast City Council that is the statutory approver in the process, not the STG. It is important to examine issues, particularly things such as terms of reference, and I have absolutely no doubt that the programme assessment review will look into that as well.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Tá fáilte romhat, a Aire, chuig an Choiste ar maidin seo. You are very welcome to the Committee this morning.

At the meeting on 30 April, Mr Scott also alleged that members of the safety technical group had had to sign confidentiality agreements. In reply to a question from Mr Humphrey, he said that he felt bullied and, indeed, gagged. Without getting into the specifics, will you tell us why the Department felt the need to provide additional governance for the STG?

Ms Ní Chuilín: First of all, people were not asked to sign confidentiality agreements or to sign up to anything that they felt would have constrained or gagged them, but I am reluctant to discuss that. Mr Scott made the allegation; that is how he felt. That needs to be the subject of an independent review.

We were looking for good guidance and good governance for not just the STG but all aspects. I brought in governance procedures from other governing bodies that date from before this situation because I thought that it would help the governing body in the long term. That is my job. It is simply not correct for people to say that their views were suppressed and that they were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. That is simply not correct.

Mr Ó hOisín: OK. There seems to be some dispute among participants over the minutes and notes of the STG meetings. Is additional governance required to look into that?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I have been in the Department for four years now, and in everything that I do, particularly when it involves vast sums of public money, it is important to see what can be improved and where. There are other aspects that we work constantly on. That is one of the good things about the sponsor board.

Since December 2014, DCAL and Sport NI have been looking at introducing additional good practice for the STG. That is our job. As for why someone may feel that there was any other reason for that, I really do not want to comment. I cannot comment on it. That needs to be part of the business and processes of the review and the independent investigation.

Mr Ó hOisín: The Ambulance Service was a member of the STG, yet it felt the need to submit a freedom of information (FOI) request. Prior to that, did anyone else express any concerns about safety issues?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Not that I am aware of, no. DCAL, like any other Department, receives a vast number of freedom of information requests. I am quite proud of our record, which is that well over 90% are responded to within the target time. You mentioned one of the STG members, but no member of the STG raised with me the level of concern that was expressed to the Committee on 30 April.

Mr Hilditch: Thanks for coming along this morning, Minister, and giving us your thoughts. You are aware that the bulk of knowledge did not come forward until 30 April, but, unfortunately, we have a quite substantial list of documentation stating that safety was an issue in the Casement project. The documentation states that it has been an issue since early 2013, but it has probably been longer than that. It is worrying that you were not made aware of it. In that context — I do not want to say "concerning" or "shameful" — but senior DCAL officials and perhaps Sport NI have kept quiet, hidden or even covered up some of these serious matters.

Ms Ní Chuilín: As a member, Mr Hilditch, you will not be surprised to hear that when a sentence contains the words "covered up", I will completely refute that. I was aware, as you and other members will be aware, that any project of this nature has, and always should have, safety as a concern. The difference is, and I think that this is what you are trying to tease out, between normal concerns and concerns that should be elevated. No concerns were elevated to me, and I assure you that I was not aware. The safety technical group was involved in discussions about safety. That is the purpose of the group, and it should be remembered that it was my Department that asked Sport NI to establish the safety technical group in line with good governance and guidance. At no time was I aware of safety concerns being ignored or that the dialogue on those concerns had broken down.

Mr Hilditch: I was not calling you into question. I was asking for your thoughts on the officials who work for you. You have given us the answer. When a layperson like me sees something like the minute of the meeting of 30 September 2013 with DCAL, in which Carl Southern, the project manager, thought that the findings on safety should be reworded because they were a bit negative, it tends to make me say, "Hold on. What's going on here?"

Ms Ní Chuilín: To be fair to him, I think that all of that will be studied very, very carefully as part of the review process and the investigation. Someone wanting something to be reworded because they feel that, presentationally, it comes across negatively is different from someone wanting it reworded because they do not want the concerns raised. It is not for me to determine that; it is for the review, the investigation and, indeed, the Committee's process to determine that.

Mr Hilditch: I think that we have to understand. I know that there has been a bit of a play made on referring to Hillsborough, but any event that risks causing one casualty, never mind multiple casualties, is of concern. It has to be understood that professional people cannot remain silent on such serious matters.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I totally support you on that. It is worth noting that, as I said, I was shocked when I learned of these allegations. It was not for the optics, and it was not spin — I was genuinely shocked. I was also hurt that someone would accuse me of putting at risk up to 30,000-plus spectators and hundreds, if not thousands, of residents in the vicinity. I found that shocking, and I still do. It is because of that that I initiated these processes. I have instigated two of the three processes that have happened as a result of the allegations made on 30 April. There are bundles of paper, but I am sure that you will be aware that Justice Horner, in his comments on the judicial review, made it very clear that a safety certificate will contain such terms. This process is all about safety, from start to finish — from the commencement of consultation to the commencement of a planning application and until the safety certificate is issued.

Mr Hilditch: Will the work that you have initiated with independent experts involve the Sports Grounds Safety Authority?

Ms Ní Chuilín: It will involve whomever we need. In my opening statement, I talked about safety experts and expertise in that field. The member might also like to know that I have consulted the British Cabinet Office on looking at the Major Projects Authority and the collaboration between them. I have gone to people whom, if you had asked me five years ago, I would not have thought of. I have gone to DFP and the CPD, and I am going to the Westminster British Cabinet Office to ask it to come into my Department and tear this project apart to see whether there is evidence to substantiate the allegations that were made. I will go further if I need to.

Mr Hilditch: I certainly welcome those actions. I move now to the process. In October 2012, Rosalie Flanagan, the then permanent secretary of DCAL, said about the Windsor project:

So, for Windsor, there was a clear process for how you were able to get as close to 18,000 as possible. Why did that not happen with Casement, where you were hoping to get close to 38,000? Had it been built, the safety certificate issued would, given the issues, potentially, have been for 13,000, 14,000 or 15,000. From the perspective of spending public money, we are sitting with three quarters of a white elephant.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The reason why you brought in Rosalie Flanagan's comments is because they reiterate the point that I made. Safety in all aspects, including design and planning, has been part of discussions, including with the sponsor board. When you put something out for consultation, particularly around planning, it is important that safety compliance is clear and transparent. It is also important to mention that risk assessments on options would have been part of an outline business case and would certainly have been adhered to. At one stage, the plan was for a 40,000-capacity stadium, but that went down to 38,000, which I understand would have been green book and red book compliant. However, I think that you are trying to make the point that the business case might have stated, for example, 38,000, yet, technically, Belfast City Council could have come in and said, "No, this has been granted for only up to 18,000". That would have certainly raised serious questions about the public interest and value for money. All of that needs to be teased out as part of this process. Given Judge Horner's comments last December and the new consultation process, I imagine that those figures will loom large in any new planning application. They have to be part of the consultation.

Mr Hilditch: That takes us to further steps to push Casement forward and get the project done. If all of this is factual, there will be a problem with the design. We will have to redesign a project on which, potentially, £6 million or £7 million has already been spent. We are, basically, back at the start. Is that accurate?

Ms Ní Chuilín: There is that potential, but, as you say, it is a question of if rather than is. That is what we need to prove. It is important. I do not want these processes done hastily. However, we need a conclusion fairly quickly because the budget is time bound and time limited. That goes without saying. If we have to and can go back to the drawing board, it is again a question of if rather than is. All those things will need to be considered by the two processes. I would be surprised, if not shocked, if Justice Horner's comments last year, particularly on crowd and traffic management, did not mean that the GAA needed to identify a new baseline as part of the consultation process on a new planning application. For any baseline, the GAA would have to demonstrate how safety for that capacity would be met.

Mr Humphrey: Morning, and thanks for your attendance. I have a couple of questions in relation to Mr Scott. Under the heading "Safety technical group", your letter to the Chair of the Committee on 12 May set out that you wanted to make it absolutely clear that the chair, Mr Scott, had not been removed. It had been put in the public domain that he had been removed, and he told the Committee that he had been removed. How could he have been under the misapprehension that he was being removed?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I have no idea, and that is for the Committee and the process to establish.

Mr Humphrey: With Mr Scott still in place, why did you state, in the same letter, that you had asked the Department's permanent secretary to convene a meeting of the STG? Surely that is Mr Scott's role, not the permanent secretary's.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will bring the permanent secretary in to answer that because clarification would be helpful.

Dr McMahon: Part of this was the Minister's concern that we should hear directly what the STG had to say. I want to make it clear that I would not be convening the STG; Mr Scott would be convening it in order to directly —

Mr Humphrey: Mr McMahon, the Minister's letter states:

That is the letter from the Minister to the Chair of this Committee.

Dr McMahon: I accept that the wording may not be clear about that. I have spoken to Mr Scott on two occasions: once before sending him a letter to inform him that we were beginning the investigation and yesterday, to discuss how he felt about the meeting going ahead. It is absolutely clear that Mr Scott is happy to organise the meeting, and it will be very clearly about expressing —

Mr Humphrey: Mr Scott is organising the meeting, and you are not.

Dr McMahon: That is correct.

Mr Humphrey: This letter is not accurate on that issue.

Dr McMahon: Convening or instigating. Maybe the word "instigating" should have been used, but Mr Scott will organise the meeting, and I will attend the meeting. Mr Scott and the other members of the STG will explain to me their concerns first-hand. I will —

Mr Humphrey: So —

Dr McMahon: Sorry, excuse me. I will listen to those concerns first-hand, and I will then report to the Minister on those concerns.

Mr Humphrey: You can appreciate how other members and I take this view. The letter states that the man is not being removed; he alleges that he was told that he was being removed; and, a few paragraphs later, the letter seems to undermine his position, when it states clearly that he is not being removed but that you, not he, will convene a meeting.

Dr McMahon: No. If your inference is that, somehow, I will take over the chairing of the STG, that is absolutely incorrect. The meeting is simply for me to hear at first hand the views of Mr Scott and the others so that I can report to the Minister. That is all it is for. If it is appropriate for me to attend further meetings, that will be a matter for discussion with Mr Scott.

Mr Humphrey: Minister, I take it that Sport NI minutes come to your Department as it is an arm's-length body.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, they do.

Mr Humphrey: So, who —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Do you mean Sport NI board minutes?

Mr Humphrey: Yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, they do.

Mr Humphrey: To whom are they sent?

Ms Smith: Normally, the main contact between an arm's-length body and the Department is the sponsor branch.

Mr Humphrey: Who?

Ms Smith: Normally, the main contact between an arm's-length body and the Department is through a sponsor branch —

Ms Ní Chuilín: The head of the sports branch in DCAL.

Mr Humphrey: Who is that?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Fergus Devitt.

Ms Smith: Although, if the minutes relate specifically to stadia, they may go to the stadia team.

Mr Humphrey: By whom is that team headed?

Ms Smith: Rory Miskelly.

Mr Humphrey: So, what happens in DCAL if there are issues identified in the Sport NI minutes?

Ms Smith: Sorry, may I just clarify whether you are referring to board minutes?

Mr Humphrey: I will come on to that.

Dr McMahon: If significant issues arise in the minutes, there are two issues. First, if the issues identified mean that they go to the sponsorship team, they escalate them to senior management. That is what they should do. If, however, there is a very serious issue that is discussed at board level, it would not be unreasonable to expect Sport NI to contact senior officials in the Department directly, over and above any minutes that they have issued or published. Obviously, if there is a serious issue, it is not enough to say, "We'll include that in the minutes", and assume that it will be picked up.

Mr Humphrey: Does the chief executive of Sport NI hold regular accountability meetings with senior officials in DCAL? If so, who are those officials?

Ms Smith: Yes, the normal practice for Sport NI, as with any arm's-length body, is to hold regular accountability meetings and sign biannual assurance statements to assure the Department that processes and procedures are operational. The normal practice is for the chief executive of an arm's-length body to meet the senior sponsor in the Department for regular accountability meetings to satisfy and give assurance on a range of issues, covering business plan objectives and implementation as well as governance.

Mr Humphrey: When Paul Scott, the technical manager, attended — I raised this when he was in front of the Committee — the Sport NI board meeting on 23 June 2014, which was 11 months ago, he spoke about the three stadia. Minister, I listened carefully to your response to Ms McCorley, and you said that you did not know about many of these issues until Mr Scott gave evidence to the Committee. I accept that, but, at that meeting, Mr Scott raised a number of very serious issues. The minutes state:

So, the board of Sport NI was supporting the evidence that was given. The minutes continue:

That was passed to the relevant person in the Department, so do you accept that DCAL was made aware of the issues? Who was made aware, and what information about those issues was provided to you, as the Minister?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I am not too sure whether you are quoting the board minutes or comments that Mr Scott made to the Committee.

Mr Humphrey: These are Sport NI board minutes from June 2014.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. I will take those minutes and present them to the inquiry, but let me repeat this: even withstanding what has been said, no one took it upon themselves to elevate to my level the fact that there were safety concerns. I have taken a note of that, so it will certainly be something —

Mr Humphrey: I accept what you are saying —

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will accept it, presentationally. I could also argue, presentationally, that it could be a report from meetings to do with the STG or stadia. However, the way in which this has been raised is that serious concerns were presented to DCAL, and they were minuted at the Sport NI board meeting on 23 June last year.

Mr Humphrey: Minister, I took that quote from the minutes of Sport NI, which are placed on the Internet. As members are aware, I presented it to Mr Scott when the Committee heard evidence from him only a few weeks ago.

I welcome your decision to broaden the investigation to a full review. Why did you take that decision?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I wanted to ensure the best process possible because the allegations made here on 30 April were some of the most damning I have heard since becoming a Member of the Assembly in 2007. I wanted to ensure that I did as much as I could, not only to support someone who made a whistle-blowing allegation — that is what it is being treated as — but to be totally satisfied that everything in the development of the three stadia, including the redevelopment of Casement Park, is as it was presented to me. Members need to be assured that I have not done the bare minimum but have gone as far as I possibly can, not just to assure members but to increase public confidence that these stadia will be built to the highest safety standards.

Mr Humphrey: That is vital.

Finally, Minister, in an interview with the BBC earlier in the month, you said:

Ms Ní Chuilín: That was a political comment.

Mr Humphrey: Yes. I am a politician, and you are a politician, so I am happy to ask the question and hope that you are happy to answer it: who are these people, and where is the evidence for that statement?

Ms Ní Chuilín: We need to separate that from residents' concerns so that they are not described as being "anti-GAA", because that is not the case. However, subject to the review and the investigation, it appears to me that the level of scrutiny asked of the GAA was not asked of the sporting bodies involved in other developments. I am using my experience from as far back as when I was a member of Belfast City Council. I was there from 2003, and, if you look at the strategies for pitches and other developments back then, the provision of services and facilities for the GAA was grossly below what it should have been, given its membership. That has changed, but I just feel that, at times, there is an awful lot of spinning and posturing from people about this development that has been unhelpful and unnecessary. I accept that it was a political comment that I perhaps should not have made. However, it was made. I will be subject to the review process and the full investigation, as will everything. If it proves to be the case that unwarranted or unsubstantiated allegations were made, that will also come out.

Mr Humphrey: Who are the people who, you say, are placing an unfair scrutiny on the GAA on Casement Park and not on other projects? Who are these people?

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is right and proper that there should be scrutiny, particularly of all the stadia programmes and, indeed, the subregional programme that will come after. I think that the level of scrutiny is a given, but I am not prepared to go any further than what I have said. I have made my point, and that is it.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Can I just come in there on two points? Just to clarify, on 23 June, when that minute was in the Sport NI board meeting minutes, that was before Fergus Devitt came in to his current position. In June last year, was Mick Cory the head of sport?

Ms Smith: I am trying to think. I think that Fergus joined DCAL in the autumn of last year, so it was his predecessor.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It was Mick.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): So, those minutes were from 23 June, and they would not have been passed until the meeting after that. It would be useful to get the point where —

Ms Ní Chuilín: I have taken the point not only about the minutes and the fact that Mr Humphrey has raised the minutes, but at what stage they were forwarded on to the Department —

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That would be helpful.

Ms Ní Chuilín: — because that is what we need to clarify.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): If you could forward that information to us, that would be helpful. We are stretching the thing. The Minister said that 20 minutes past would be the very limit, and we need to respect that.

Mr Dunne: Thanks, Minister and officials for coming in today. Can you clarify the role of the sponsor board in managing the projects?

Ms Ní Chuilín: First, the role of the sponsor board is to have the three governing bodies, as well as the Strategic Investment Board, Sport NI, the different officials in the stadia programme in DCAL, the permanent secretary and the SRO. Its role is to ensure that, first, there is open dialogue regarding the challenges, obstacles and processes and that there is a general understanding of the level of development that each of the programmes is at. The IFA and the GAA have sat for long enough listening to the developments of Ulster Rugby because it was first to go and there were lessons that it learnt. However, it is primarily, about looking at the detail and covering things like the programme and the governing bodies to raise issues and to advise the Department if any other support or additionality is needed.

Mr Dunne: Who in the sponsor board has a responsibility for the broad term "health and safety"?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Everyone, to be honest; everyone has the responsibility. There is no health and safety officer who attends in their own right as a health and safety officer, if that is what you are asking.

Mr Dunne: No, I am not talking generally about health and safety as we know it in the day-to-day work. Who, on the management team, was the accountable officer for health and safety on the sponsor board?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Each of the governing bodies.

Mr Dunne: Each of them. OK. Can you just clarify —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Sorry, Mr Dunne, Sport NI was there as well.

Mr Dunne: Sport NI was there.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, it was.

Mr Dunne: So, it has the responsibility, through the safety technical group, for health and safety in relation to Casement. Is that correct?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I asked Sport NI to set up the STG in 2012, so it is one of the bodies that are responsible, but each of the governing bodies also has responsibility for safety. In fact, we all have a responsibility, but, primarily, it would have been the job of Sport NI and its governing bodies to report the safety concerns of each of their projects.

Mr Dunne: What we are trying to establish is that the sponsor board has executive authority on the projects and that it is accountable to you, I take it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is right.

Mr Dunne: So, any documentation that it brings forward should be compliant with standards and requirements, and you trust it to do that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes.

Mr Dunne: So, if we talk about the broad term of health and safety for Casement, who is the person responsible on the sponsor board for satisfying your requirements for health and safety?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Sport NI and STG would first have worked with the governing bodies. Primarily, however, the redevelopment of Casement Park is a management issue for the Ulster Council of the GAA in conjunction with Sport NI and in compliance with best practice.

Mr Dunne: The various representatives on the board have joint responsibility for health and safety.

Ms Ní Chuilín: They do.

Mr Dunne: My understanding is that the plans for Casement Park were drawn up, the documentation was put in place, and they went out to contract. I understand that the contract was set. Who was responsible, then, in the sponsor board for signing off all the documentation to take it right through to contract?

Ms Ní Chuilín: That would have been the job of the senior responsible officer; they need to sign off that the requirements that I have set are satisfied. That is the level of accountability. In this case, it is the deputy permanent secretary. Previously, it was the permanent secretary.

Ms Smith: As the Minister explained, there are two structures. There is the stadium programme sponsor board, which is chaired by the Minister, and there is a programme board beneath that, which I chair. Each of the projects for the GAA, IFA and rugby has its own project structures as well. If you asking about the release of funding — I think that it is set out in the papers that we sent you — there are various approval levels —

Mr Dunne: I understand that. The payments are one thing. The final documentation on standards and requirements for the contract was signed off by someone. There certainly would have been a requirement in that to meet health and safety standards.

Ms Smith: Absolutely.

Mr Dunne: Who signed off that document?

Ms Smith: Just to be clear, in signing the contracts for the projects, one of the key parts would be to ensure that all statutory obligations were met and applied, including —

Mr Dunne: Did you sign off the documentation?

Ms Smith: The contract for Casement Park?

Mr Dunne: Yes.

Ms Smith: The contracts would have been let following a process, which would include, obviously, the signing-off of the business case, for example, and I would have approved the final business case, obviously. There was a process, as the Committee heard, from the outline business case right down to the final business case approved, which happened for Casement Park in December 2013. Only after the final business case was approved and the funding agreement executed, would the contractor have been appointed.

Mr Dunne: You took it on yourself to sign off, or an officer reporting to you signed off, the documentation. I assume that all documentation on health and safety requirements, which is the focus for today, was compliant for Casement Park. Is that the case? Were you satisfied? Prior to the signing-off of the documentation, whether or not it was you personally, were you satisfied that the documentation was compliant on the issue of the day: health and safety at Casement Park?

Ms Smith: The Minister was very clear in her opening remarks, which, if you bear with me, I will repeat. There is a separate statutory regime that has to be complied with in order to open any sports stadium for play, including Casement Park and the other two stadia. A safety certificate is issued under a separate statutory regime, which, in this case, is operated by Belfast City Council under the safety —

Mr Dunne: I understand that. That is really the final certificate on completion.

Ms Smith: It is the statutory responsibility of a separate body to provide safety certification that the grounds may be opened for use. That is a requirement under legislation.

Mr Dunne: I understand that. All the documentation, including health and safety, equality and costings, had to be in place in the contract and be compliant before sign-off. All I am asking is this: can you give us an assurance today that that documentation was compliant and that health and safety requirements for Casement were in place before the documentation was signed off? I understand that we have spent over £6 million to date on that, including the contractor, all the consultants and the technical advice. Are you satisfied that it was compliant?

Ms Smith: As the Minister has made very clear, the purpose of instigating the various processes that the Minister announced and instigated is to absolutely find out from a factual point of view whether proper processes were followed, proper documentation was in place and whether the various stages in the design development of Casement Park —

Mr Dunne: I understand that.

Ms Smith: I want the review to investigate that fully. That will take place.

Dr McMahon: Can I add a bit of clarity? It is absolutely clear that, for any documents to be signed off in a programme or project structure, they have to be compliant. At any stage in the process, they will be in development, but there has to be an expectation that they will be compliant, because the funding agreement will require — in fact, does require — that all statutory obligations will be met. You are absolutely right to focus on the fact that an SRO or, in my case, an accounting officer has to be clear that all statutory requirements have been met. However, the question really is this: were we satisfied then or are we now satisfied that those designs are compliant? That moves us into a very technical area because the questions are: what reasonable assurances did we receive? Were those assurances reasonable? Did we act reasonably on the basis of them? That definitely needs to be looked at independently by the experts who will be doing this project assessment review.

Mr Dunne: Obviously, we are not getting an assurance today that the documentation was compliant before signing off. You cannot give us that assurance.

Dr McMahon: If we were absolutely assured, we would not be doing the project assessment review. That is clear.

Mr Dunne: Right. That is OK.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): The Minister will come back at some stage in the future, but I think that the officials from the Department will come back on another day on their own to deal with it.

Mr Dunne: We appreciate that you are now carrying out an investigation to verify it. That is the proper process.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thanks, Gordon. Every second counts at the moment.

Mr Dunne: I have a couple of other points.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): No, Gordon.

Mr Dunne: Just one other thing. STG —

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Sorry, Gordon.

Mr Dunne: Just one point. You have been very tolerant.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I have been very tolerant. That is fine. I have three more people. I only have another 12 minutes.

Mr D Bradley: Maidin mhaith agus fáilte romhat, a Aire.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Maidin mhaith.

Mr D Bradley: I have been on this Committee for maybe too many years now, and my observation is that there is a theme of DCAL officials failing to properly monitor non-departmental public and arm's-length bodies, including Sport NI previously. The most outstanding example is the Northern Ireland Events Company. It collapsed in 2007. This is 2015 — eight years later — and a report on that has still not been published, even though the Departments in the Executive have now spent more money investigating the collapse than the amount that the collapse lost at the beginning. There is a certain irony in that.

Much of this predates your time, but it seems to me that these themes have been evident in DCAL and have been pointed out by members of the Committee, including me, on numerous occasions, but DCAL does not seem to learn from them. You said earlier that it is important to review those things to see what can be improved and strengthened, but, unfortunately, the history of DCAL does not verify that those processes have happened.

Anyway, the Events Company investigation has taken eight years to date and is not complete. How do you expect us to have confidence that you can carry out a project assessment review in 12 weeks?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you for the questions. The member will not be surprised. The events and occurrences that he referred to were well before my time.

Mr D Bradley: I realise that, but —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Because of that, other Departments, primarily DETI, are dealing with the aftermath of the Events Company. It is not even DCAL that is dealing with the report, and it should not be because DCAL cannot investigate itself. That is why DETI is investigating. I am not passing the buck; I am just giving you a factual position. The question needs to be responded to by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Mr D Bradley: Minister, DCAL carried out three investigations before it handed it over to DETI, including handing it to the police. Anyway, we will move on from that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Dominic, that was not on my watch. What is on my watch is this.

Mr D Bradley: If it has taken over eight years to complete one investigation, what gives you the confidence to believe that you can do one in 12 weeks?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I am asking for one of the processes to be done. I asked what timeline is normally given for a review, and I was told that it is 10 to 12 weeks. However, — and this is the caveat — if there is a difference, it will be weeks, not months or years. If, for example, as part of that investigation, as part of the review or, indeed, as part of the process of the independent investigation, they come back to Denis and say that there are things that they have discovered that they need to take more time on or that there are people they need to speak to whom they cannot get hold of and that that will have an implication on time, so be it. I want to ensure that we lift a carpet up and shake it out. We want to look everywhere to ensure that public confidence is achieved. The member will not be surprised when I say that whatever happened before is a matter for those who were involved in it. I was not involved in it, and I do not want to be involved in it. It is now passed to DETI and, indeed, to the Audit Office. That is where it needs to rest. They need to report.

Mr D Bradley: Earlier, a member asked who the senior official from DCAL was who represented the Department on the quarterly accountability meetings. That question was not answered.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will answer it. First, I am there because I am the Department. Normally, I am there. At some stages or other, you had the permanent secretary, so Rosalie Flanagan was the SRO. You had Cynthia and Peter May. Cynthia took over as the SRO and continued that. You had the deputy permanent secretary, who was the SRO, and the permanent secretary, and you had all the other people. The DCAL senior officials were the Minister, the permanent secretary, the deputy permanent secretary and the programme managers, Rory Miskelly and Noel Molloy.

Mr D Bradley: Are you telling us that, during none of those quarterly accountability meetings, were there serious concerns raised about safety at Casement?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Not at the sponsor board meeting, no. Not to me. None of those concerns was raised, not at the level that Mr Scott came to the Committee with.

Mr D Bradley: You said very clearly at the beginning what you have just said now: that Sport NI did not inform you about the serious safety concerns.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is correct.

Mr D Bradley: You said that you were unaware of them until 30 April.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is correct.

Mr D Bradley: In that case, how can you continue to have faith in Sport NI?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I hope that this review will come forward with recommendations that will not only help this programme but will help to instruct what we need to do more of, including working with the sponsor body, in this case Sport NI. I give leadership to the ALBs as well as substantial public money. I do not expect to be invited to their children's weddings. However, resulting from this, I think and hope that there will be a recommendation on things that we can do better and differently. That does not just rest with DCAL; it includes Sport NI, I imagine.

Mr D Bradley: I will leave it at that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat.

Mr B McCrea: Thank you, Minister. Minister, are you happy with the fact that 80% of the people watching a match would leave by the Andersonstown Road exit?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I have been to many matches at Casement Park, including some semi-finals and quarter-finals. I have left at the Casement Park exit, along with most of the people, mostly through the Andersonstown Road and some through Owenvarragh.

Mr B McCrea: Talking about matches that you were at, you were at the match for Michaela.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, there were 14,000 or 15,000 at it.

Mr B McCrea: I think that the figure reported was 18,662.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Well, there you go.

Mr B McCrea: When you were leaving, did you not think that there were problems with the exiting issues?

Ms Ní Chuilín: No, I thought that the traffic management plan was excellent.

Mr B McCrea: So, you are not aware of any concerns raised by residents in the area about the exiting plans for that particular match.

Ms Ní Chuilín: No.

Mr B McCrea: As a local MLA, there appears to have been some discussion about the difficulties with traffic jams and things.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Traffic jams and traffic disruption are different from pure traffic management, and, by the way, I do not represent West Belfast: I represent North Belfast.

Mr B McCrea: I know that you do not, but you were at that particular match as the Minister, and you would be in Belfast.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, absolutely.

Mr B McCrea: If there was an issue about an emergency exit plan, when do you think that that plan should be considered in any process?

Ms Ní Chuilín: On the example that you used, particularly around the match for Michaela and part of the traffic management plan for the planning application, had there been serious concerns about how traffic was managed, I would have expected to at least hear about it then.

Mr B McCrea: Yes, but I asked you about in the process, because Mr Scott told us that the first thing you should do in any stadium construction is ask whether you can get a stadium to work. Is there any scenario in which you can do it? He thinks that that should have been considered first, and his argument is that you cannot get so many people out of one exit in case there is a problem with that exit.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I accept the point that you are trying to make, and I assume that Mr Scott, and, indeed, Belfast City Council, would have considered that when they issued the safety certificate for that event. However, it is one of the issues that I think a programme assessment review needs to consider.

Mr B McCrea: In your assessment, having been to Casement Park fairly frequently and having been to the match for Michaela, do you think that it is possible that we will be able to get an emergency exit plan at the numbers that are currently envisaged?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I am not fixed on the numbers, to be quite honest with you. To the best of my knowledge, at this stage, the 38,000 number has been agreed to the green book and red book guide standard, and it was agreed in terms of risk assessment. However, I do accept that Justice Horner made comments about a reduction in the numbers as part of his report in December. I anticipate that, when the GAA announces figures for the consultation and the new application, they may be reduced. I am not dogmatic about the numbers. It is up to the GAA to provide —

Mr B McCrea: I have just two last questions, because I know that there is one more person to speak. Can you think of any reasons why the Andersonstown Road exit would not be available?

Ms Ní Chuilín: No.

Mr B McCrea: So, you do not consider a security alert that might happen, a gas mains explosion, civil disturbance or flooding? You can think of no reasons why the Andersonstown Road exit would not be available.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is interesting that you mention those, and others have mentioned them as well. Because they have been mentioned by Mr Scott, people subsequently mentioned them in commentary afterwards. That is why experts from the Major Projects Authority will be taking forward the project assessment review and will independently consider the design. That will look at the context of ensuring safety, both in the layout of Casement Park —

Mr B McCrea: Let us assume, for example, that, for some reason, the exit to the Andersonstown Road is not available. How would you expect 38,000 people in that stadium to get out? We have a map here that says that you could get about 15,000 out. The assertion that Mr Scott made was that it would take us, I think, 26 minutes to exit the stadium in that bit, which is beyond eight minutes. If the exit was not available, how would we go about making it work?

Ms Ní Chuilín: As I said before, making it work is part of the issue. That is not to be repetitive, obstructive or evasive. I am not a health and safety expert. It is for the Major Projects Authority taking forward the programme and the project assessment review to determine that. It will consider whether the design as it sits can work in the context of ensuring safety, so I cannot comment on specific technical issues. I am happy to be guided by experts and expertise in this field.

Mr B McCrea: You, Alasdair McDonnell, Peter Robinson and a whole range of people were at Casement Park for the match for Michaela when there were 18,662 people, which was a pretty big crowd. There must have been some excitement at how big the crowd was. It was a big thing and nobody thought to ask, or you in your role as Minister, "I wonder what would happen, what are the plans, if the Andersonstown Road is not available?"

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is what Belfast City Council does very well; it issues a safety certificate based on all those possible scenarios.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thanks, Basil.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I assume that you are not questioning Belfast City Council on its ability to issue that safety certificate for that event.

Mr B McCrea: Actually, I was asking what you thought.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will take your comments and ensure that they are fed in as they are questions worth asking because it is about increasing public safety and public confidence.

Mr B McCrea: I agree with that. Thank you, Minister.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): The Minister said that she would be able to stay until twenty past. We are a few minutes past that. There was Leslie to ask a question. I do not know whether you can spare another three or four minutes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Leslie has not asked a question, and I am happy to take a question.

Mr Cree: Thank you, Minister and Chair; I have waited patiently. Some of the points have been covered; maybe not fully, but covered.

There has been a lot of talk that safety comes at the end. Safety does not come at the end; it comes at the design stage. Would you agree with that?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I did not say that safety came at the end, Leslie.

Mr Cree: I am not saying that you did, but a lot of the speculation —

Ms Ní Chuilín: No, no —

Mr Cree: For example, you talked about safety certification. That comes at the end.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It does, absolutely. I agree with that.

Mr Cree: All that should have been decided at the design stage.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Safety and safety considerations are paramount at the start, throughout and at the end.

Mr Cree: It should have been at the very first; it should have been at the design stage.

Mr Hilditch: Chair, could I seek a point of clarity from the Minister? She indicated on a number of occasions that the design is compatible with the red and green guide: we have been told here that that is not the case. Who is informing you that it is?

Ms Ní Chuilín: No one. It was my understanding that when the outline business case was supported and, indeed, cleared for funding, even at the 40,000 figure down to 38,000, there would have been a risk assessment done and that it would have needed, at even the initial stages, a green and red book guidance approval. I am happy to be proved wrong and for the review to consider the comments that I made today and, indeed, for the investigation to consider them.

Mr Hilditch: Thank you. There will be an opportunity for the civil servants to come back and answer further questions.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Chair, I am happy to come back to the Committee because I want to assure the Committee, and everyone else, that I am doing as much as I can to ensure that the allegations that Mr Scott made are properly and sensitively investigated and that he is given due process and respect. I believe that I have done that.

I also want to give an assurance that the review, which will be very detailed and very robust, will take place. I will also ensure that the reports, which are not normally published by the Department, are given to the Committee and published, particularly the report from the review. Thank you very much. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thanks very much indeed.