Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Good morning. You are welcome, folks. It is nice to see you again. I hope that you had a nice summer break. Well, maybe not a break, but a nice summer anyway. [Laughter.]

We welcome Sian Kerr, the Department for Infrastructure's director of transport planning and policy, along with Mrs Adele Campbell and Royanne Kincaid from the Department's gateways branch. Can we take five minutes of your time to get an update on the work on the consultation, and then we will open it up to members? If it sneaks past five minutes, we will be pretty understanding.

Ms Sian Kerr (Department for Infrastructure): Thank you, Chair, for inviting us to provide an update to the Committee today on the review of trust ports. I am joined today by Adele and Royanne, whom you have already introduced. If you are content, I will begin by setting out the context of the public consultation, and then I will talk specifically about the outcomes or findings on the policy recommendations.

The public consultation ran for 12 weeks from 16 December 2024 to 10 March 2025. The policy areas under consideration related to the powers, status and governance of the trust ports. The Department gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the individuals and organisations who took the time to help shape our policy development. A copy of the responses report was issued to the Committee in June, and it is available on the Department's internet. Whilst most responses have been extremely positive, we noted that some respondents declined to answer certain questions, preferring instead to make general comments or raise specific issues that were not related to the consultation. The Minister was provided with an options paper following the consultation. It set out five policy options arising from our analysis of the responses and sought her agreement to the recommendations that were outlined.

The first recommendation was to retain the current trust port model. As part of the review, we examined what other potential port models might be available for our ports. From the consultation responses that we received, there was no appetite to move away from the trust port model.

The second recommendation was to make legislative changes that, we are confident, will have the effect of bringing the trust ports within the private, non-financial corporation status. Those legislative changes would require the repeal of three powers: the power of the Department to compel the sale of a trust port; the power of the Department to give a trust port directions of a general or specific nature; and the powers of the Department — the council, in the case of Coleraine — to appoint a majority of the members of trust ports and then include the powers of the Department — the council, in the case of Coleraine — to appoint a minority of members of trust ports. There would also be reference to specific Northern Ireland trust port guidance documents in the individual harbour orders that will cover the code of practice, preparation of ports master plan guidance and short-term implementation plan guidance. Those documents would further strengthen the relationship between the Department and all the ports and would clarify publication and transparency measures and stakeholder engagement and support of public accountability. In the consultation responses, all the trust ports supported the changes that need to be made to ensure that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) classification changes. The reclassification will provide the ports with an ability to borrow more freely, which will provide more flexibility to their operations and help them to maximise their economic impact. It will be helpful in meeting the future needs of the ports and the local economy.

The third recommendation was to make legislative changes to provide the trust ports with a wide range of commercial powers similar to those of the GB ports. In the consultation responses, all Northern Ireland trust ports supported extending the commercial powers that are available. It was noted that the benefit of the reclassification of trust ports, with appropriate additional commercial powers, would ensure the competitiveness of Northern Ireland's trust ports.

The fourth recommendation was to make legislative changes to provide the ports with a general power of direction in line with GB ports. In the consultation responses, all Northern Ireland trust ports considered that power to be essential in the proper discharge of their marine safety obligations under the ports and marine facilities safety code, and they supported the inclusion of that power in new legislation.

The fifth and final recommendation is to make legislative changes in order to include the directive that statutory harbour authorities could initiate a harbour order as well as the Minister. The consultation responses support the change to streamline the process and bring Northern Ireland in line with existing arrangements in GB.

The Minister has agreed to the recommendations. A paper has been issued to the Executive to seek their agreement to the policy proposals being brought forward in a new Bill and to the Department engaging with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to complete the instructions and drafting of clauses for a Bill. The Minister hopes to introduce the Bill before March 2026 to enable the Assembly's scrutiny of the Bill to commence.

I hope that that update has been helpful. We are happy to answer any questions that you may have.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Thank you very much. That is really useful. I appreciate the update. We as a Committee had the privilege of being at Belfast Harbour just before recess. It was a really enjoyable experience and good to hear from the commissioners.

In your evidence, you highlighted the fact that Belfast Harbour is eager, as are the other ports, to see the legislative change happen. You mentioned the Minister's intention and timeline; are you 100% confident that we will get the Bill through in this mandate? There is a concern about bandwidth for legislation output, so is there no doubt at this stage that this will make it through its stages before the end of the mandate?

Ms Kerr: That is the intention. The timescale has always been relatively tight. We were able to put this forward for a slot because we had had a previous version of the Bill some time ago. Some of the drafting had been done. The timescale is tight, however. We have never shied away from that point.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): OK. That is good. I know that the trust ports are keen to see the change happen as quickly as possible.

There was concern among some people that the proposals might be a back door to the privatisation of the ports. From the evidence we all know — I am certainly keen to point it out — that that is not the case. If you can set out clearly why that is not the case, that will be useful.

Ms Kerr: The model of a trust port will remain. To all intents and purposes, the ports will look largely the same. The issue is primarily to do with the extra powers that they require and their reclassification, which will allow them to borrow without that going through the Department's books.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Exactly. As we heard from the ports and as you highlighted, that has already happened in GB. Will you set out how that has benefited those ports up to this point?

Ms Kerr: Broadly speaking, the reclassification at the time affected all the trust ports across the UK, including Scotland. The legislative change has had the impact that we would like. It has certainly freed up the ports to borrow and contribute fully to the economic situation in those areas. We see that as a positive, and it provides us with the assurance that they have been through the ONS reclassification process before. We have examples of where the exact thing that we are trying to make happen has happened, so we have that experience to rely on.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): I agree with you on the public consultation and thank everyone who took the time to respond. There were some really good responses. Was there anything in that that has influenced how you may reword or change the Bill that will be introduced or flagged anything that might not have been considered?

Ms Kerr: There were 60 responses. You have a copy of the document. The responses were broadly in line with what we had anticipated. Some people took the opportunity to raise other points that were not necessarily relevant to the changes that we proposed. Largely, the situation and the recommendations remain those that we previously briefed you on. Some of the issues will be more fully explored in the detail of the drafting.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): OK. That is pretty much all from me. I place on record again my thanks to you and your officials for that briefing and to our trust ports, which make a massive economic and social impact in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that, when the legislation finally comes to fruition, it will be of huge benefit to them, given their huge economic plans to develop their areas and their output.

Ms Kerr: We have worked closely with them throughout the process, and they have been very helpful.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Exactly. They are grateful for it; I appreciate that.

I will open up to other members, and I may come back with questions.

Mr McMurray: I appreciate the economic contribution that the ports make . We are an island economy, and we need to get stuff in and out, so they are super-important.

Can you elaborate on the proposed transparency and stakeholder engagement measures in support of public accountability? I am conscious that some of the ports are in close proximity to towns that are also residential areas and the like.

Ms Kerr: I may bring in Royanne and Adele on that. The ports have a clear economic benefit, not just because they are gateways. Hopefully, when you were at Belfast Harbour, you could see the work that is going on that supports the Executive's wider ambitions for Northern Ireland. They have an impact on tourism, renewables, energy, data — all of that. It is not just confined to the gateway aspect. The trust port model is for the benefit of the public. You may have heard that Belfast Harbour is owned by no one, but for the benefit of everybody. From our experience, the trust ports are very aware of their relationship with the local community and make efforts to ensure that that is positive. Sometimes that is difficult, given the nature of some of the operations of ports. I have been assured that they are aware of the need to engage with the community and to reinforce their wider benefit to the Northern Ireland economy.

Do either of you want to add anything to that?

Ms Royanne Kincaid (Department for Infrastructure): I just endorse what you have said. The trust port model is staying, and a component of that is that the profits are ploughed back into the ports as trust ports, and that benefits all the stakeholders, including local communities as key stakeholders in our ports.

Mr Boylan: I could not resist speaking. I was just thinking of the plush place that we visited that day, compared with the building that we are in today.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Are you saying that this is plush? [Laughter.]

Ms Kerr: It is lovely.

Mr Boylan: No, I am talking about the meeting room that we were in that day, with all the moulding and everything else. Keith and I got a wee trip out on the boat as well. Part of the conversation that day was about creating a level playing field and opportunity, which is what this is all about.

My two questions relate to what the Chair said. Clearly, getting the consultation right so that we got as much information as possible and were informed going forward — I think that we have done that. You may want to speak on that. Some of the commentary around what was said outside the questions being asked may inform us as well. The other key point for them, obviously, is the time frames. So the two main points were, one, that we got the consultation right, and, two, if we go forward with this, we need to move fairly sharpish, because it creates an opportunity for them. After the visit, we got a better understanding of that. Like I say, the room that we were in that day and this one are slightly different.

Ms Kerr: I think that this room is pretty nice. It is better than our offices.

Mr Boylan: John is in the Chair today. Maybe that is why.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Do not hold it against me.

Ms Kerr: As I said, there are certain decision points. The next stage is getting Executive endorsement to take this forward. At any stage throughout the process, there is the opportunity for it to be delayed. We are trying our best, as are the ports, to engage with everybody so that it has a smooth passage. I assure you that I and my team are doing all that we can to enable this to go forward. There are risks with the timing. We will continue to endeavour to get it through.

Mr Boylan: Hopefully, we will be able to move things on. Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Anything else, Cathal?

Mr Boylan: There are no china cups today. [Laughter.]

We were spoilt that day, absolutely spoilt. That is the first and last thing.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Members, are there any other questions at this stage?

Mr Dunne: Just briefly, Chair.

Mr K Buchanan: Chair, —.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): You can fight amongst yourselves. [Laughter.]

No comment.

Mr Boylan: Away you go, Keith.

Mr K Buchanan: I have just one question. You had 60 responses. Are the trust ports here broadly content with your direction?

Ms Kerr: Yes. In some cases, they probably would like to go further. We have to balance the points that were made today about public accountability, the role of the ports and everything else. I think that we all agree that where we have got to is a sensible way forward.

Mr K Buchanan: Sian, you talked about little comments that other people had made that were not relevant. What were the bones of those?

Ms Kerr: Some of them were around local issues and things that have been alluded to, such as ports being close to communities. To make it clear, it it is not that we ignored those; they just were not relevant to the specific legislative change.

Mr K Buchanan: They are relevant to the people making the comment but not to the legislation.

Ms Kerr: Absolutely. There is certainly strong feeling around that. It is important that people have the opportunity to have their voice heard. People wrote in that context.

Mr Boylan: It is acknowledged.

Ms Kerr: Absolutely.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for the presentation. Would there be any impact if this were not to go through in this mandate? Have there been any arrangements around that?

Ms Kerr: The status quo would remain. There would be a lost opportunity in terms of the harbours moving forward with development plans that would be of benefit to the Executive and Northern Ireland as a whole. It would just delay things further. Maybe we would try again — I do not know — but it would be a shame because, in the short term, it would be an opportunity lost.

Mr Dunne: You are aware of the major development plan for the cruise ships and so on.

Ms Kerr: Those opportunities would potentially be lost.

Mr Dunne: There has been significant investment in that area. There are 700 apartments being finalised at Titanic. A real transformation is taking place at Belfast Harbour.

Ms Kerr: You can see the impact in Belfast when the cruise ships are in. It is a growth area. I was at the Belfast briefing, and the commissioners spoke about the growth in that space. There are also wider implications around energy, renewables and all of that that go hand in hand with the work that the Executive are trying to bring forward and the wider aims for Northern Ireland. It would be a shame and an opportunity lost.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr McMurray: Keith made the point about local issues. They are not relevant, but the Department is aware of them and is taking them on board. Does that not tie in somewhat with the point that I tried to make about local engagement and local stakeholders? Those two answers do not quite marry up, if that makes sense. Maybe you could connect or explain them a bit better.

Ms Kerr: Each of the ports probably has different issues when it comes to communities. They are in very different locations in relation to the communities beside them. Each is aware of how to engage with stakeholders. Warrenpoint, for example, has a community forum. I am not sure, off the top of my head, about the specific engagement models that the other harbours use, but they are all very mindful of that relationship. Belfast provides some charitable funding and supports other causes in the community. All of them are very aware of the role that they play in their local area not only as employers but also in terms of the wider benefit to communities.

Mr McNulty: Thanks, Sian, Adele and Royanne. Further to what Andrew touched on, the legislation is being introduced to:

and

That seems a bit contradictory. Does that mean that trust ports will no longer be compelled to oblige the Department or the local council in terms of their functions?

Ms Kerr: One of the issues with the ONS classification, and one of the reasons why the ports were reclassified in the first place, was the fact that the Department — the Minister — appointed a majority of the board. The change is very wordy and convoluted. We will change the legislation to say that we do not have to appoint the majority and, instead, we will appoint the minority. That is to avoid the ONS classification, which links to the borrowing. I cannot remember the first part, but there is ongoing engagement with the Department on the code of conduct. We engage with the ports very regularly. We are of the view that that will not be problematic. Again, it plays into the ONS classification issue.

Mr McNulty: So it is not problematic that the Department will no longer be able to:

Ms Kincaid: That provision has not been used to date. It is a key component of looking at ONS reclassification. We have to address that to achieve the aim of having ONS reclassification reconsidered.

Ms Kerr: There is a wider point about the cost of control. Either we have control, in which case we restrict them through the borrowing ability, or we have to lessen some controls to enable them to make a full contribution to the economic position here. We cannot have both. The issue is the balance and how we put in place guidance and other processes to assure people that the trust ports are making that full contribution. I hope that helps to answer the question.

Mrs Adele Campbell (Department for Infrastructure): Even when we remove some of the powers, there are additional controls that remain in the legislation. The Department can use those, should it need to for any reason. We can also bring in voluntary measures to improve accountability and transparency through the code of practice or good governance guidance. The Department will still appoint the chairs. That will be done not by the trust ports. The Minister will appoint the chairs of all the trust ports. As Sian said, we need to be mindful that we cannot remove controls and then put more controls in. That will not amend anything to do with the ONS classification. However, if anything were to come up in the future, the Minister could still introduce legislation to change things. If a port fails to act appropriately or some issue comes up, new legislation can be brought in.

Mr McNulty: That is worrisome for me if it is voluntary for ports to adhere to certain criteria. Is that what you are saying?

Mrs Campbell: The code of practice is voluntary. That is the same for all ports in the UK and Ireland. There is no legislation. It is in our legislation that the Department can bring in the code of practice, but it is only a voluntary measure. All our trust ports at the minute go by the good governance guidance from the 2008 GB legislation.

Ms Kincaid: They voluntarily adhere to that standard.

Ms Kerr: If it is helpful, we can provide that to you in writing. A number of measures are still in place that require trust ports to provide information and the like. We are repealing only some of the powers. I am happy to write to the Committee about the powers that remain and how we can utilise them to retain some kind of control, albeit without it being within the realms of going back towards ONS classification again. We are assured that that balance is right. We are happy to provide you with all the information. We can do that later.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, ladies. You obviously know a lot more about it than me. I appreciate it.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): That written brief would be useful. The Committee will have the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation on the Floor of the House and here. If Justin or any other member wants to bring anything to that, they are welcome to do so. This has been floating about for years in some shape or form.

Ms Kerr: Yes, years. Decades, possibly.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): I think that I am right in saying that every Infrastructure Minister for a significant number of years has been fully supportive of the changes, including the SDLP and Sinn Féin Ministers.

Ms Kerr: Yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): I do not think that there is anything to worry about in that respect, but it is right and prudent that members look into every aspect of this, and the Committee will do that when it comes forward for scrutiny. We look forward to receiving that brief.

Mr Boylan: It is a valid point to raise, but my understanding is that it is about flexibility and opportunity. I appreciate the issue. It is in the development zone. Some of the commentary around concerned residents or anyone else involved is fine, and that will all play its part, but those of us who were at the briefing understand clearly what you are trying to do and what it means. It is a great opportunity. It has been floating around. They all explained that day exactly what they are trying to do. To not do it would be a waste of an opportunity. To be fair, Justin's question is reasonable, but it can be worked through.

Ms Kerr: We will come back to you with information.

Mr Boylan: Yes, 100%. It is reasonable. Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): If there is nothing else, it just remains for me to thank you for coming today and for your continued work on this and engagement with the trust ports. We look forward to having you back at Committee when the legislation has been drafted and introduced in the Chamber and is before us. Hopefully, it will not be too long.

Ms Kerr: Thanks.