Debate contribution: Casement Park: Non-GAA Events

Debate contribution by Mr Andy Allen MBE on 17 February 2026.

MLA: Mr Andy Allen MBE
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 17 February 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Casement Park: Non-GAA Events
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5394435

Text

At the outset, I say that there are a number of elements to the motion. Before I turn to the substance of the motion and the amendment, it is important to turn to the history of Casement Park itself. The project did not reach its current cost estimate because of one decision or one party. There were planning challenges and court proceedings. The original planning was quashed. There were redesigns and safety issues that had to be addressed, and there was a period when the Assembly and the Executive were not functioning. Then, as we all know, the costs of construction and inflation rose sharply. Anyone involved in capital projects over the years knows how dramatically costs have increased. The most significant delays, however, stemmed from planning and safety considerations, and that is part of the factual record. It is too easy, and perhaps convenient, for some to reduce it to a simple political narrative or to level a charge of sectarianism. The cost reality is more complex than that. The Executive have committed over £60 million, the UK Government £50 million, the Irish Government up to €50 million and the GAA £15 million. That is a commitment in the region of £170 million, which is more than the combined fund for the regional stadia programme. Acknowledging that fact, however, does not remove the issue that we face today. The projected cost has increased significantly from the original commitment and plan, and we are debating the matter at a time when capital budgets are under real pressure. Every day, our constituents rightly highlight the length of housing waiting lists, school buildings that are no longer fit for purpose and roads that are in a shocking state, to mention but a few issues. Members across the House no doubt have similar examples that they will wish to highlight. Every time that we consider allocating further capital funding, we need to be honest about what that decision will mean for other priorities. Our position has been consistent throughout: the original commitment should be honoured — we are not arguing to tear it up — but we do not support the provision of additional public funds for Casement Park in the current fiscal climate, given the competing pressures that we face. I will turn to the clawback element of the motion. When public funding is provided, the Minister and the Department must demonstrate that it meets the value-for-money test. That is not optional. Rather, it is a fundamental requirement when using public expenditure, and it applies to every project, not just Casement Park. If further money is provided, many will understandably question that decision, particularly those who are waiting on housing or for investment in essential infrastructure. That is the reality of the Budget context in which we are operating. On the principle of clawback, a requirement to recover a proportion of revenues that arise from non-GAA use is something worth considering. Where public money underwrites a venue that will host major commercial events, it is reasonable to examine whether a proportion of revenues should be returned to the public purse.
The Member knows full well what I am referring to. He should not try to put words into my mouth. We are also content, in principle, to support the Member for West Belfast's amendment, which broadens the scope, notwithstanding the concern that the proposer of the motion raised. Revenue-sharing mechanisms have been used elsewhere, as others have highlighted, although the details will need to be carefully considered, not least as they relate to the amendment. There is a clear difference between hosting major concerts and routine room hire, and the practical implications of any mechanism must work in practice and not have any unintended consequences. I am therefore keen to hear more from the Minister about how clawback would work in practice, notwithstanding the unintended consequences for stadia and other projects that are already under construction. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.

664 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification