Debate contribution: Casement Park: Non-GAA Events

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 17 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

17 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Casement Park: Non-GAA Events

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5394565

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members for their contributions, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate and the amendment. As the Minister with responsibility for the long-established regional stadia programme, I recognise the issues that Members have raised about the future use of the Casement Park stadium, in particular the question of whether a mechanism should be put in place to secure a clawback of public funds from non-GAA events held at Casement Park for the public purse. Let me provide clarity to the House: that is something that I support. However, let me first set out a little of the history behind the Casement Park project, as some in the Chamber seem to have forgotten that history or seem determined to rewrite it. In 2011, there was a funding agreement for football, rugby and the GAA. I stand by that agreement, which would have allowed all projects to progress. The work at Windsor Park progressed. The work at Ravenhill progressed. The work at Casement Park did not.

I will give way.

We were involved in that. We agreed to it, and we stand by that. I know that that does not suit the agenda of some and the message that they are trying to push. I will come to that further in my remarks. The question that I ask is this: why has the project not progressed? The answer is simple: it is because of the actions of Sinn Féin and SDLP Ministers.

Unlawful decisions, community objections and safety certificate scandals all led to significant planning delays. As a result of those delays, costs have spiralled. The project has not been without controversy, and there continues to be controversy; in fact, even over the past couple of months, senior figures in Monaghan and Tyrone GAA have expressed their opposition to the current plans. Let us not pretend that everybody is in agreement or that there is a simple and straightforward path for everybody to go down. Mr McNulty and others say, "Let's just get on with it and get the stadium built", but we know that there are significant barriers in the way. We are also aware that additional capital allocations are currently unaffordable in the context of squeezed capital budgets for public services. That is why I, along with other Ministers, need to make sure that we spend the available money wisely. The immediate challenge is to live within the existing budget envelope. The challenge of more for less is here to stay. We therefore need to be open to all options. We all want value for money and for stadiums and other assets to be sustainable. We all want to assist and support partners to develop and grow. Members will be aware that Casement Park is the third and final project in the regional stadia programme. The other two major projects — Ravenhill and Windsor Park — were completed and became operational in 2014 and 2016 respectively. The then Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure had funding arrangements in place with the IFA and Ulster Rugby, but, now that there are additional funding streams coming from other sources, we will have to look again at all options for future funding agreements. My officials are currently considering an amended funding model to accommodate the new funding streams available to the Casement Park stadium, including the specific requirements of the UK Government's equity financial transactions capital element. I await advice on how new funding streams will be handled. That will, however, allow us to look at various funding models, which can include those that minimise the impact on the public purse. It is important to note that that work has not concluded and that any proposals will have to be agreed with all stakeholders and parties to the funding agreements. It is something that we should all be open to, however. At this stage, I will sound a note of caution about Casement Park and all other capital projects. Funding for them all will be subject to a business case. A project's viability will be rigorously tested through the business case process, in which it must demonstrate value for money and sustainability. As part of the process, value for money is embedded across all aspects, including, where appropriate, any scope to return profits from non-sporting events to the public purse. There are no special cases or exemptions from the process. It is also important that we have consistency on the proportion of funding already allocated to the programme. An important aim of the programme of capital investment in regional stadia is to reduce the three main sports' future reliance on ongoing revenue support from government. The principle that has been applied in the regional stadia programme is that capital investment supports each sport's ability to develop long-term financial sustainability. Of course, commercial activities form part of that sustainability, as they allow the governing bodies to operate and maintain their facilities without additional, ongoing public revenue support. The commercial management and operation of Casement Park, once completed, will therefore lie with the Ulster Council of the GAA, in accordance with the conditions of the existing funding agreement and any new funding model pertaining to the additional funding streams. The amendment raises an important issue about the future management of public funding for stadia in general. It proposes that public investment in any stadia currently under construction and in future projects be contingent on a legally enforceable clawback mechanism:

"to return an agreed proportion of net revenues from all non-sporting events to the public purse."

It is entirely appropriate that Members should have the ability to consider how best to safeguard public investment and the forms of return that may be justified. There are legitimate matters for scrutiny here, particularly where publicly funded facilities may also operate as commercial venues for events beyond their primary sporting purpose. It will also be necessary to assess the amendment within the broader policy framework that has guided the regional stadia programme since its inception.

The programme has consistently operated on the principle that capital investment should strengthen each sporting code's long-term financial sustainability and reduce future reliance on government revenue support. Central to that approach has been enabling venues to diversify income through a range of commercial and non-sporting activities. Public money is given because there is an expectation that market failure has taken place and there is no other option open to venues to get them where to need to be. However, if an organisation is particularly commercially successful in making significant sums from commercial venues, most people will see that it is only right that such a return should be made to the public purse. For those reasons, I believe that the motion and the amendment are entirely reasonable. I have to say that I am surprised by the response of some in the House today. We have frequently heard from the parties opposite the refrain that this explicitly targets the GAA. Some may be supportive —

Mr Durkan, let me finish my sentence. Perhaps it will all become clear to him. If that is Members' concern, the amendment helpfully tabled by Mr Carroll provides a way for everybody to be treated equally. We have heard the word "equality" time and again. The amendment means that, from this point, people will be treated equitably. It opens the door to allowing a clawback that, by the way, is nothing new. As Mr Gaston pointed out, it exists in other parts of the United Kingdom, and it has existed in Northern Ireland. I think in particular of the opportunity that urban development grants gave to different areas. The success of that allowed a clawback. If your concern is that this is only about the GAA, vote for the amendment and make sure that, from here on, everybody is treated equally and that, if there are significant commercial returns for one organisation or all the organisations involved, there could be some return for the public purse. We invest public money on the basis that it is required because there is no other option for organisations to develop, but, if they subsequently become successful, is it not right — is there not benefit in this? — to make sure that that comes our way?

Yes, I am happy to give way to the Member, who, I think, wants to use this as an opportunity to have a go at unionism. She did not address the motion earlier.

Funding agreements were in place with Windsor Park and with Ravenhill, and a default on those funding agreements would have necessitated a clawback and allowed it to happen. A funding agreement for Casement Park has not been put in place. One of the reasons why a new funding agreement is needed is that there is additional FTC. It is up to the Executive to decide how the equity share works out. With most FTC, there is a requirement for some return on the loan that is given. The motion does not say that all commercial profit needs to come back; it says that "an agreed proportion" should come back. It asks whether, if something is commercially successful and there is a large return from such events, it is only fair that the public purse should get a little back. I say that we should treat everybody the same: if additional funding is required for the other stadia, treat them the same. There is an opportunity for us today to agree, on the basis of equality, that everybody should be treated equally. The motion does not determine exactly how much or what percentage; it opens the door to successful commercial ventures to give a return. I was disappointed with some of the responses, and I count the Alliance Party in that. In Ms Mulholland's short contribution, she said that she did not want to deepen division and felt that there was an issue of equality, because it was a case of one being picked out over others. However, the amendment gives her an opportunity to show that everybody can be treated equally and to demonstrate financial prudence and responsibility. I urge the Alliance Party, as I urge everybody in the Chamber, to reconsider. It is an option that may make us more sustainable and give us a return so that we can invest more in the future.

I envisage it being used primarily for the regional stadia. We are talking about a portion of significant commercial income. I am not sure that smaller clubs that have been impacted by that fund would get that commercial return, so that is still fair. That is a reasonable point. I am not even saying that it will generate a lot of income, but I am asking this: why would we not allow that option to be there and consider it? The way that this appears to be going is disappointing. Much of the debate has been about one organisation being singled out over others. The amendment gives us a way to consider the issue and ensure that everybody is treated fairly. I encourage —

That is kind of the Member, but I urge him, even at this last minute, to reconsider. If we are serious about spending money wisely and want to ensure equality and equal treatment, it would be wise for him to get on board.

I am reluctant to give way to the Member, because I thought that his was a lazy speech. His speech did not address the motion. This was not a proper debate about the rights and wrongs of a clawback; it was people repeating their old tired —

No, I am not giving way. — their old tired ideas about Casement Park, rather than looking at the motion. If we read —

I am not giving way, Mr McNulty. If we read the motion and the amendment, everybody should be willing to accept them, but, unfortunately, some Members are so blinded that they are not prepared to accept reasonable proposals.

2,012 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:51 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.

Challenge this classification