Northern Ireland Centenary Stone row: DUP, UUP and TUV leaders 'not asked' about decision to move stone to more expensive site

However when Sinn Fein MLA John O'Dowd stepped down to become a minister, his party was unable to nominate a replacement because the assembly was suspended.

As a result, the remaining members were able to agree in February to progress unionist requests to install the stone on the west side of Parliament Buildings.

However it has since emerged that a unilateral decision was taken in June to change the agreed location to the east side, with the estimated installation costs rocketing from £4000 to £18,000 as a result.

The BBC reported on Friday that the rise in costs prompted DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, UUP leader Doug Beattie and TUV leader Jim Allister to write to the Assembly Commission - which manages the facilities around Stormont - to ask for financial support to make up the difference.

However, the request met with sharp opposition from the SDLP."This is clear cut," an SDLP spokesman told the BBC. "The proposers agreed to cover the costs of the installation and they should honour their commitment to the full amount at the location agreed by the Assembly Commission."

The revelations prompted sharp debate on social media.However, it was not until later in the day that it emerged that a decision to change the location had been taken without consulting the unionist leaders. The new location will be in the area of Lord Craigavon's tomb.

The News Letter understands that the change of plan will involve redesigning the grandiose access to the tomb, and thus explains the extra £14,000 costs to be incurred.However the rationale for the change of plan has not been made public and the party leaders were not consulted before it was made.

A DUP Spokesperson said, "The proposal, first put to the Assembly Commission, was that the stone would be donated from contributions made by Unionist members and that it would be sited on the West side of Parliament Buildings by the Assembly Commission.

"Subsequent issues have arisen relating to siting the Centenary Stone on the East Side of Parliament Buildings (which is the preferred site of the Commission and its Officials) and associated additional installation costs and we look forward to finding a fair and equitable outcomes on these issues in the near future."

TUV leader Jim Allister said that the Assembly Commission had originally accepted unionists' proposal to place the stone to the west of Parliament Buildings but in June it "unilaterally" decided it should be erected to the east.

He said that because the eastern location near Lord Craigavon's tomb would be a more "elaborate construction" it was a "reasonable proposition" to ask the Assembly to make a contribution to the costs.The News Letter asked the NI Assembly repeatedly throughout Friday if the Commission had indeed taken a unilateral decision to move the location and also what the explanation was for the steep increase in costs?

Late on Friday afternoon a spokesperson responded, to say that they would not be answering either of the two questions.Instead they offered the following statement: “On Wednesday 21 June 2023, the Assembly Commission received a report on the detail of issues to give effect to its previous decision to agree to erect a centenary stone donated by the unionist parties. These issues included environmental heritage and planning permission, equality and good relations and associated preparation and installation costs. Discussions have not yet concluded on this matter.”

One senior asserted that there would be no such debate about any similar memorial being fully taxpayer funded in Dublin, Edinburgh, Cardiff or London.

"It is just because it is unionism - this is just another one of those examples,” he said. “People are just looking for a reason to view unionism negatively."

Sinn Fein declined to comment on why a unilateral decision had been taken or the reason for the sharp increase in costs.

A party spokesperson said unionists should have discussed their proposals with other parties to ensure "negative perspectives of partition" were reflected in it.

“Logically then, unionist parties agreed to meet the costs but now want the expense of installing this stone to be paid for from already over-stretched public funds,” they added.