Debate contribution: Maze/Long Kesh Redevelopment and Investment
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Maze/Long Kesh Redevelopment and Investment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4485719
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I think that I have said before that the feel of this mandate is different. The mood is better, the positivity is higher and the determination is greater, so I do not want to be critical. We have to be honest, however, and say that, over the years, our record on developing major infrastructure projects is not the best. Desertcreat was supposed to be a world-class facility for all our blue-light responders. That did not happen. The York Street interchange could still be years away. Of course, we also have the Maze/Long Kesh. It is nearly 20 years since the cross-party group published the master plan in May 2006. It stated that we should have a multisports stadium. That did not happen. We are living with the legacy of that, because we have built or redeveloped only two of three stadia. As an important aside, if the two that we developed had been Casement and Windsor, what would the rugby union fraternity be saying about not having its development? If it had been Casement and Ravenhill, what would the Association football people be saying if Windsor Park were the odd one out of the three? We therefore need to think about the consequences of not doing what we say we are going to do. Of course, the master plan included an international centre for conflict transformation. The Strategic Investment Board (SIB) was tasked with consulting on the proposal for the peace-building and conflict resolution centre, as it was called. I was one of the four victims' commissioners at the time. We did not have a view on whether we supported it, but I did attend what I think was the first meeting that the SIB held at the Community Relations Council (CRC). The poor official tried to focus people, all of whom were representatives of victims' groups, on three questions: should we have a centre; if so, what should be in it; and where should it be? Everybody went straight to question 3. Everybody who represented a nationalist/republican viewpoint said, "It has to be the Maze. It is the only site you can have". Everybody on the unionist/loyalist side said, "Oh no, anywhere but the Maze". It convinced me that it was the most toxic choice of land in Northern Ireland that we could possibly have come across. If that issue is still the blockage, I propose something that I have proposed before. Let us have a peace-building and conflict resolution centre but not at the Maze/Long Kesh; let us retake the Crumlin Road courthouse. The First Minister and deputy First Minister were there last week with Joe Kennedy, looking at the fantastic work on the other side of the road. The tunnel is still there, and it could be reopened. The courthouse could be a conflict resolution centre in North Belfast, which saw more murders per square mile than any other part of the country and where levels of deprivation and dereliction today are very high, as Members such as Mr Kingston quite rightly remind us. When it comes to the prison, the remaining hospital wing and the rest, can we be imaginative? Think of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Johannesburg. The courthouse was built on the site of an old prison, and part of the construction involved taking bricks from the former prison's wing for those awaiting trial and putting them into a gable wall of the new Constitutional Court. Maybe we could be imaginative about how we link things together. If we did that, what a great permanent home for Colin Davidson's 'Silent Testimony' collection as the start of peace-building and reconciliation.
607 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: 0.16 (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 (0.81).
- The text reports, quotes or asks about the framing rather than adopting it (0.52).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.22 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.16 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.16 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.45 |
| Reports or questions it (chosen) | 0.52 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.61 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.39 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:20 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.