Casement Park: Government says funding will not have to be repaid
The government has confirmed that the £50m funding it pledged for the development of Casement Park in Belfast will not have to be repaid.It followed questions raised in the Assembly by the DUP after it emerged the funding was allocated under a mechanism which allows for the money to be repaid.The process is known as Financial Transactions Capital and when questioned in the chamber today Finance Minister John O'Dowd said the details were still being worked through.He also raised the prospect of money being repaid.But in a statement a government spokesperson said it was providing the £50m as an "equity stake" rather than a loan.
The money came as part of the chancellor's Spending Review, which allocates money to day-to-day public services for the next three years.Rebuilding the west Belfast stadium is estimated to cost about £260m - of which £120m is jointly in place from the Stormont Executive, the Irish government and the GAA.There is still a shortfall of about £90m.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Judge deems some of Trump's National Institutes of Health grant cuts illegal
Donald Trump's administration broke the law when it terminated more than $1 billion in medical research grants the president claimed were linked to "DEI", a federal court has ruled. In a blistering judgement issued on Monday, District Judge William Young — a Reagan appointee — said he had "never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable" in his 40 years as a jurist. He ordered the government to immediately reinstate numerous National Institutes of Health research grants canceled as part of Trump's war against any program perceived to favor people of color, transgender people, or other minorities. "You are bearing down on people of color because of their color," Young told the defendants. "The Constitution will not permit that... have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?' The lawsuit blocks a small portion of the 2,100 research grants that Trump has canceled — representing a total of about $9.5bn in funding — with other grants to be decided later. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, NIH's parent agency, said it was "exploring all legal options" and might appeal the judgement. "HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people,", the spokesperson said. Judge Young's ruling concerned two separate lawsuits that were heard together, one by a coalition of academic researchers and unions led by the American Public Health Association and one by a group of Democrat-led states. The scientists' lawsuit argued that NIH had violated its usual science-based review process, as well as federal regulations and specific orders from Congress to fund research into health disparities. The grants varied widely in topic, from cardiovascular health through alcohol abuse in minors to the differing impact of certain medications on different racial groups. The Trump administration has claimed that it is slashing "DEI" initiatives because they discriminate against other Americans by unfairly privileging minorities. In court, Trump's lawyers said that the NIH's grant cuts were "sufficiently reasoned" and that the agency has "broad discretion" to offer or rescind grants "in alignment with its priorities". But Judge Young held that although the Trump administration had a legal right to "extirpate affirmative action" if it saw fit, the grant cancelations had been "arbitrary and capricious" and broken government rules.
BBC News
24 minutes ago
- BBC News
MPs to vote on decriminalising abortion - how the law could change
A law change aimed at decriminalising abortion will be debated in the House of Commons on Labour MPs, Tonia Antoniazzi and Stella Creasy, have tabled rival amendments to the Crime and Policing Sir Lindsay Hoyle could pick one or both amendments to be debated by MPs, but is likely to only pick one to go to a vote. MPs are usually given a free vote on abortion, meaning they do not have to follow any party line on the subject. What does the current law say? The current law in England and Wales states that abortion is illegal but allowed up to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy and beyond that in certain circumstances such as if the woman's life is in have to be approved by two doctors, who check if one of a list of criteria have been met - for example, if the pregnancy poses a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman. Recent law changes have allowed women to access pills to be taken at home to terminate their pregnancies under 10 2022, the most recent data available, 252,122 abortions were reported in England and Wales - the highest number since records began. Abortion providers have reported receiving 100 requests for medical records from police officers in relation to suspected abortion offences in the last five years. Last year, abortion provider MSI told the BBC, it was aware of 60 criminal inquiries in England and Wales since 2018, compared to almost zero women have appeared in court in England charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy outside abortion law, in the past three Jonathan Lord, medical director at MSI, said the organisation believes the "unprecedented" number of women being investigated could be linked to the police's increased awareness of the availability of the "pills by post scheme". What would Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment do? Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment aims to prevent women from being investigated, arrested, prosecuted or imprisoned for terminating their own pregnancies. She has argued that the investigations are "dehumanising and prolonged and the women forced to endure them are often extraordinarily vulnerable".She said those investigated can be victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation or women who have given birth prematurely. "The reality is that no woman wakes up 24 weeks pregnant or more and suddenly decides to end their own pregnancy outside a hospital or clinic. "But some women, in desperate circumstances, make choices that many of us would struggle to understand. What they need is compassion and care, not the threat of criminal prosecution."Her amendment would maintain punishments for medical professionals and violent partners who end a pregnancy outside of the existing law. It has received the backing from 176 MPs and the main abortion providers. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has said the amendment is an "extreme and dangerous proposal" that would "effectively decriminalise abortions". How is Stella Creasy's amendment different? Stella Creasy has put forward a rival amendment which would enshrine abortion access as a human right and also aims to prevent women who have terminated their own pregnancies from being has said her amendment goes further than her Labour colleague's proposal, by offering "protection to all those involved in ensuring that women can access safe and legal abortions".Creasy has argued that Antoniazzi's amendment would not stop the authorities investigating "the partners of people who had an abortion or the medics who provided the abortions and it would not prevent demands for women to give evidence as part of that process". It is backed by 108 MPs but not abortion providers. Rachael Clarke from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service has said Creasy's amendment is not the right way to achieve "generational change". Speaking to the Radio 4's Today programme last week, Ms Clarke said abortion law is "incredibly complex", adding: "It is essential that any huge changes to abortion law is properly considered." The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has described Creasy's amendment as "even more extreme" than that of Antoniazzi's adding: "There'd no way to bring an abusive partner who causes the death of an unborn baby to justice."
Sky News
44 minutes ago
- Sky News
Angela Rayner backing Sir Sadiq Khan's plans to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street
Angela Rayner is backing plans put forward by Sir Sadiq Khan to pedestrianise Oxford Street "as quickly as possible". The mayor of London has previously tried to ban traffic from the famous shopping street but was thwarted by the then-Conservative majority Westminster City Council in 2018. Sir Sadiq 's office say 66% of people asked as part of a consultation on the plans backed the pedestrianisation. Separate research from YouGov run in September last year suggested that 63% of Londoners support the project. Ms Rayner, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, said: "We want to see Oxford Street become the thriving place to be for tourists and Londoners alike, and that's why we welcome the Mayor of London's bold proposals to achieve that. "We will support the mayor in delivering this ambitious vision, which will help to breathe new life into Oxford Street - driving investment, creating new jobs for local people and providing a boost to economic growth in the capital." This time around, the plans just need the backing of Ms Rayner, and the mayor is looking to create a mayoral development corporation by 1 January 2026 at the latest. Sir Sadiq wants to restrict traffic from the 0.7 mile area between Oxford Circus and Marble Arch, with the potential for further changes towards Tottenham Court Road. The mayor's office claim that, of more than 6,500 responses to their consultation launched in February, "Londoners and businesses overwhelmingly back the mayor's ideas". The proposal has the support of Ikea, Selfridges, John Lewis and the London Chamber of Commerce. Detailed traffic proposals will be established later this year. 👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne's on your podcast app👈 Sir Sadiq said: "Oxford Street has suffered over many years, so urgent action is needed to give our nation's high street a new lease of life. "It's clear that the vast majority of Londoners and major businesses back our exciting plans, so I'm pleased to confirm that we will now be moving ahead as quickly as possible. "We want to rejuvenate Oxford Street; establish it as a global leader for shopping, leisure and outdoor events with a world-class, accessible, pedestrianised avenue.
