Debate contribution: Maze/Long Kesh Redevelopment and Investment
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Maze/Long Kesh Redevelopment and Investment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4485696
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is great to have the opportunity to speak on this important issue for Lagan Valley. To clarify, I am speaking from the Back Benches and not in my capacity as deputy First Minister. The response to the debate will officially be from the First Minister. I do, however, want to contribute to the debate because of the site's importance for Lagan Valley in particular and, in my view, Northern Ireland. This is a site of regional importance, not just Lagan Valley importance. I also speak as somebody who has another role in which, hopefully, I have capacity and the position to seek to move this project forward. I worked very closely with the site long before I came into the Lagan Valley constituency. For many years, I worked with colleagues around the Assembly, some of whom are still in the Assembly. I can honestly say that I have spent many hundreds of hours of my life working on the Maze/Long Kesh proposals. Of course it is a source of deep frustration that the overall site has not been developed, and there are a number of reasons for that. Sometimes, it is incredibly simplistic to put this down to being a political disagreement. The reality is that the politics and decisions around a site such as this are not about what we do to people or what politics decides and imposes through leadership or whatever it may be. The development of the site had to happen together with those who were involved in, had a link to or had understandable issues, concerns and genuine fears and apprehensions about some aspects of the site, because there are historical aspects of the site that touch on all that. I see that my Assembly colleague the Member for Strangford is here. He was actively involved with many of the organisations at the time of the initial proposals. Some of the proposals were very ambitious, and we worked very hard on them. This site can be an economic driver not just for Lagan Valley but for Northern Ireland. There is space on the site, which is in the key geographic location of the Belfast to Dublin corridor, with links to airports and ports. The site has so much potential for us and would be ideal for an economic hub, particularly in some of the new areas that we talk about all the time, such as regtech, green tech and AI.
It must also be a site for the community. I am glad that I have been working with many in the community, including local sports organisations, on the potential of using the dedicated community and sports aspects of the site.
We also need to listen to the people who had concerns about the initial proposals. The prison site is an example of the challenging and difficult legacy issues that we often have to deal with in Northern Ireland. We went out and spoke to people about the original proposal. We listened to groups and to the people who would be most impacted by it, and we understood. We had to listen to the genuine concerns and issues of victims and survivors, the prison officers who worked on the site, the prison officers who were injured, the families of those who were killed on the site and around the prison and of those who may be connected to the prison perhaps because they served time there. There is a lot of history with the site. That will require us to move forward with consensus and sensitivity and by taking people with us. The most important thing for us in politics is not to step forward to do something that will create further division, hurt and harm. The previous proposals could not go ahead not because of a lack of political agreement at the time but because there was no consensus among the key stakeholders — the people who were most invested in the way forward for the site. However, that does not mean that we should not take on the challenge of navigating those issues and finding a way through. Finding any way forward for the site must be done with victims at its heart. It must be done in a way that is entirely sensitive to the needs of victims and to the history, heritage and legacy of this place. That is my pledge today. There have been huge success stories on the site, and I will refer to them. The Balmoral show attracts a million visitors a year. It is a huge success. Great progress has been made with many of the buildings there. It has really become a source of celebration, I know, for all of Northern Ireland, but I am particularly proud to have it right in the heart of Lagan Valley. It attracts visitors from across Northern Ireland. I always encourage city folk and town folk to get there to see some of the wonderful agricultural and rural aspects that are on display. That has been really positive, and we look forward to working closely with the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS). I will also refer to the fantastic Ulster Aviation Society. If anyone who is listening to the debate has not been down to see the hangars and the incredible things that the society has there, please get down to see them. On European Heritage Day, 3,000 visitors attended. There are some really good examples, but the challenge for us is to move forward positively, to ensure that we maximise the site's potential and to do so by working with people and not imposing something on them.
938 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.72).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:16 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.