Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I welcome Mr Richard Connor, vice chairperson of Coleraine harbour; Dr Gerard O'Hare, chairperson of Warrenpoint port; Mr David Holmes, chief executive officer at Warrenpoint port; Mr Kieran Grant, finance director at Warrenpoint port; and Mr Bobby Farren from Coleraine harbour. I did not get your specific job title.

Mr Bobby Farren (Coleraine Harbour): I am head of corporate engagement.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): You are all very welcome.

I seek the Committee's agreement to have the evidence session recorded by Hansard. Are members agreed?

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I now invite our guests to make their opening remarks, after which we will move to questions from members.

Dr Gerard O'Hare (Warrenpoint Port): Thanks very much, Chairman and Committee members, for the opportunity to address you on the particularly important Harbours Bill. I am Gerard O'Hare, chair of Warrenpoint harbour. I am joined from Warrenpoint by David Holmes, my chief executive, and Kieran Grant, my finance director. We are delighted to be joined by our Coleraine colleagues, who will speak to you shortly.

Warrenpoint has a proud maritime history, stretching back to the late 1770s, when the original port was constructed as a lightering port for the Port of Newry, which was a much bigger port in those days. In fact, it was much bigger even than the Port of Belfast, which I used to enjoy telling my colleagues in Belfast harbour when I was a commissioner there. Indeed, it continued in that role until Warrenpoint Harbour Authority was established as a trust port in 1971. The modern port opened in 1974 and has since developed into a critical regional, national and international gateway, which today handles around 12% of Northern Ireland's total port trade. Independent analysis by Grant Thornton found that, in 2024, Warrenpoint port facilitated approximately £3·4 billion of trade into Northern Ireland and supported more than 18,000 jobs across Northern Ireland. The port combines that regional economic footprint with a strong local impact in south Down, facilitating supply chains across the agri-food, manufacturing, construction, energy, logistics and environmental sectors. Strategically located between Belfast and Dublin, Warrenpoint also plays an important role in supporting cross-border and all-island trade and supply chains.

Our position on the Harbours Bill is quite clear. We support it as introduced and propose no amendments to it. The Bill is not about privatisation. Indeed, it preserves the trust port model. Warrenpoint harbour has no shareholders and pays no dividends. All profits are retained and reinvested in the operation, maintenance and future development of the port for the benefit of its customers, its employees, the local community and the wider economy.

Clause 1 reinforces the trust port position by preventing the Department from ever initiating a transfer scheme for any of the named trust ports. The economic analysis in our written submission demonstrates why preserving the trust port model, alongside appropriate commercial and financial flexibility, matters to the economy. Together, they will enable, in our case, the port to continue to make a significant contribution to south Down and the wider Northern Ireland economy. The Bill also does not reclassify trust ports as such. It removes or limits statutory powers that are regarded as indicators of government control, enabling the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to review the current classification. The associated Warrenpoint harbour order and a proportionate code of practice will also be important parts of the wider reform package.

You may ask why all of that matters. Currently, under the public corporation classification, any borrowing by Warrenpoint harbour counts against the Department for Infrastructure's capital budget, regardless of whether the finance is raised independently and serviced by the port independently. In practice, prudent and affordable investment can therefore require departmental budget cover and compete with the Department's own capital programme. Successful reclassification would sever that accounting link. Subject to a sound business case, board approval, affordability and all normal statutory and regulatory requirements, it would give Warrenpoint harbour greater flexibility to finance essential investment against its own balance sheet and its own income.

This is not a request for additional public expenditure or a commitment to borrow. Rather, it is about removing an unnecessary constraint, where investment is affordable, necessary and responsible. Flexibility must, of course, be matched by clear accountability. Warrenpoint harbour is committed to the good governance principles reflected in the Northern Ireland ports policy of 2008 and in the Department for Transport's 'Ports Good Governance Guidance' of 2018. Reclassification would be an accounting change, but it would not remove our statutory functions for, or our obligations to, marine safety, audit and financial reporting, planning, environmental protection, health and safety, procurement or stakeholder engagement. The Bill, the harbour order and the code of practice will therefore work together to provide both greater flexibility and robust governance.

In summary, we ask the Committee to support the Bill as introduced. It protects the trust port model, removes a significant financing constraint and creates the conditions for responsible long-term investment. For Warrenpoint, that means continuing to serve customers, strengthening regional and cross-border supply chains, renewing essential port and marine assets and reinvesting the benefits of all that commercial success in the port, the local community and the wider Northern Ireland economy.

Mr Richard Connor (Coleraine Harbour): I am Richard Connor, vice chair of Coleraine Harbour Commissioners. Bobby Farren is with me today, and he is the head of corporate engagement. Thank you for the opportunity to provide evidence on this important legislation. At the outset, I am happy to confirm that Coleraine harbour fully supports the Harbours Bill. I thank the Department and the Committee for advancing the legislation to this stage.

I will start with a brief history of Coleraine harbour. Today, Coleraine harbour proudly sits beside Warrenpoint, Foyle and Belfast as one of the four harbours that make up Northern Ireland's trust ports. I do not wish to upstage our sister ports, but Coleraine harbour occupies a distinctive place in the region's maritime history. It is situated on the eastern bank of the River Bann, which is the principal navigable river in Northern Ireland. It starts in County Monaghan and flows to Castlerock beach. Our harbour site was chosen quite simply because it was the location for the first practical crossing point to wade horses across the River Bann that was still fully accessible to the open sea. The strategic importance of our harbour's location is evidenced in 'The Annals of Connacht', which records events at Coleraine during Edward the Bruce's eventful campaign of 1315. Bruce's forces reached Coleraine harbour and destroyed its crossing to obstruct the pursuing army of Richard de Burgh, who was the Earl of Ulster. The opposing forces faced off across the two county banks of the River Bann.

That medieval account provides early evidence of Coleraine's importance as a harbour and its strategic river location. Speaking today as its current vice chair, I am staggered to be representing the same organisation 711 years later. Following the power vacuum left after the Flight of the Earls in 1607, and underscoring the shift from the Gaelic lordships to the Crown-controlled settlement, all records for Coleraine harbour are then associated with the City of London's plantation of the existing Coleraine harbour by the issuing of a royal charter to Coleraine town on 28 June 1613. I am told that that was on a Friday afternoon. The modern statutory foundation of our harbour was established by an Act of Parliament, namely the River Bann Navigation Act 1879, which incorporated Coleraine Harbour Commissioners and formalised responsibility for managing navigation on the river and estuary from the City of London's The Honourable The Irish Society to us.

Why go over all that history? Its long history gives Coleraine a unique perspective on the trust port model and the need for its legislative framework to evolve and adapt over time. From its ancient origins as the region's principal commercial gateway, our harbour has developed into a working trust port that supports cargo operations, the fishing industry, leisure boating, education, water sports and tourism. Today's commissioners continue that historic stewardship by managing navigation from the sea at Castlerock to Coleraine's town centre 5·5 miles inland, maintaining safe access and enabling the harbour to contribute to the economic and social life of Coleraine and the wider north coast.

Coleraine has a pivotal modern role to play in enabling the social and economic renewal of our town and wider region. Our colleagues in Belfast harbour recently announced with great fanfare its bold 2025-2050 master plan, which sets out planned investment of up to £1·3 billion, demonstrating the scale of ambition that modern trust port powers can unlock. Although Coleraine operates on a different scale, our 2050 master plan will have every bit as important a job to do for the community that it serves, particularly in an area experiencing acute and persistent economic deprivation.

Coleraine's wider context must be stated. Coleraine town faces significant challenges, as evidenced by a steep manufacturing decline, high vacancy rates and rising operational costs. Coleraine's average wage sits £5,000 below the Northern Ireland average. We have multigenerational low levels of educational attainment, especially among the Protestant/unionist/loyalist (PUL) community. Unfortunately, Coleraine's town centre ward also now has the unenviable title of number-one location for childhood obesity in Northern Ireland. By way of example, the recently announced £20 million granted by Westminster through the Coleraine Future Town Fund is, of course, welcome and necessary, but it starkly demonstrates the national gap that Coleraine now finds itself in. The £20 million fund is no badge of honour for Coleraine. Rather, it is a national intervention. I am plain-speaking, so I will put this bluntly to the Committee: if you were to stand in our harbour, you would see, three streets behind our gate, the seventh-poorest postcode in the UK. It is not the seventh-poorest in Northern Ireland but the seventh-poorest in the UK.

The trust ports Bill, by updating legislation, will allow a modern Coleraine harbour to be a pivotal stakeholder in turning the social and economic situation around. Reclassification will allow us to lean into everything that our area has to offer by prudently borrowing and investing in order to deliver a step change in maritime tourism by extending and transforming our river berths from the current 200 to 450. It will allow us to invest in more large industrial units of 10,000 square feet on our site. As Invest NI's reports show, there is no moving-on space for growing businesses in the Causeway Coast and Glens area, but our harbour can enable that growth by building those job-creating spaces. Reclassification will also allow us to support a growth in water-based sports in the area, including rowing, for which Coleraine's Bann Rowing Club is renowned. The trust ports Bill gives us opportunity for suitable change for the next generation. With critical, regionally balanced economic growth, Coleraine harbour can be pivotal in converting a long-term intervention into lasting economic capacity, acting as a long-overdue catalyst for investment, enterprise, employment, skills, regeneration and opportunity by reconnecting the town of Coleraine to the commercial potential of the River Bann and the wider north coast.

In summary, Coleraine Harbour Commissioners supports the Bill as an important and overdue modernisation of the outdated legislative framework for all four of Northern Ireland's trust ports. Reform must work for the smaller regional ports as well as the larger ones. For Coleraine, it should provide the commercial freedom to borrow responsibly, invest in infrastructure and expand our contribution to regional maritime tourism, leisure boating, water sports, maritime skills and wider north coast regeneration, without increasing the pressure on public finances. We fully support the retention of the trust port model, which has worked well, to the benefit of its stakeholders, with surpluses being reinvested for economic and social good.

The Department's long-standing £250,000 borrowing limit on Coleraine harbour is an outdated constraint and should be replaced by a proportionate open-market framework that is based on published strategic outline cases, robust individual business cases, sound harbour governance and, of course, open-market affordability. The modernised framework should provide fair regional representation and sufficient local autonomy for each trust port to respond to its commercial and community priorities. The Harbours Bill should proceed promptly in this mandate and be followed by a modernised Coleraine harbour order, with the Department setting a clear timetable for consultation and delivery so that Coleraine Harbour Commissioners can drive lasting investment, employment, skills and regeneration in our town and across the wider region.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Thank you very much, Richard and Gerard, for your presentations. I liked hearing about the history of your respective ports. I did not expect Coleraine's to go back that far, Richard. We recognise the huge value that our ports have delivered for Northern Ireland and how proud individual communities are of their maritime history, and we thank you for that.

Why is ONS reclassification important for smaller trust ports such as yours? I will begin with Richard and then come to Gerard.

Mr Connor: At the minute, any borrowing that Coleraine harbour takes on counts against the Department for Infrastructure's budget, regardless of whether the money is raised and paid down by our own harbour. Being the smallest of the four ports, we are probably particularly vulnerable. We are starting from a low base, so the difference between a few million pounds into our budget and a few million pounds into Belfast harbour's budget is phenomenal and would represent a step change for our operation.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I was interested in your point about the area neighbouring your harbour in Coleraine being the seventh-poorest postcode.

Mr Connor: In the UK.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): In the UK. Reclassification will therefore give you the ability to borrow further and enhance your operation. How will that help local communities beyond the organisation?

Mr Farren: We recently took representatives of the Northern Regional College (NRC) to Glasgow to see the maritime college at City of Glasgow College. There has been no maritime college in Northern Ireland since Brexit. We looked at the NRC's becoming a feeder college for Glasgow, because, as we try to build our base and create more maritime jobs, we want to have that skill set here. When someone arrives at City of Glasgow College for the first day of their course, the industry meets them there and offers them a job starting at £35,000 a year, as well as paying for their tuition and accommodation. Such a facility is not here, but one would be phenomenal for kids from Coleraine. Having a maritime college would enhance our ability to grow the harbour, because we would have in place people with the skill set as we planned to take forward development.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Do you know of any interest among those who want to stay local, particularly students, to pursue a maritime career? They could benefit from staying in Coleraine as opposed to going to Glasgow.

Mr Farren: Regarding the connection between Coleraine and Glasgow, the principal and CEO of City of Glasgow College is from Portrush. That arrangement is now being worked through. We are going through all the business cases with the college. We are enablers waiting to see how that works out, but the Northern Regional College is very interested in delivering the course.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): How many employees do you have?

Mr Connor: In Coleraine? Seven.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Do you have a vision for the number of jobs that such a Bill will potentially unlock?

Mr Connor: I dare say that it could be hundreds.

Mr Farren: We are finalising our 2050 strategy. Within that, we are looking at building a hotel and student accommodation. We are also looking at having a high-performance rowing centre for Olympic athletes, because we have 10 times more gold medallists per head of population than anywhere else in the UK. The current rowing centre is operating out of the basement of a Chinese restaurant and thus cannot deliver its own strength and conditioning programmes or operate regattas. We are also looking at building industrial units, because there is a plan for a wind farm off the north coast by 2035, and that is going to need serviced. The numbers have not yet been worked through, but we are looking at hundreds of jobs on that site, as opposed to seven.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): You anticipated one of my questions, which was about the opportunities and projects that may be unlocked, and you named a few.

Gerard, why is ONS reclassification important to a trust port such as yours? What specific opportunities may it unlock for the wider community in Warrenpoint? Moreover, what may the number of current employees eventually rise to?

Dr O'Hare: I will take you back to the independent Grant Thornton study that I referred to earlier. A total of £3·4 billion in goods went through our port in a particular year, supporting 18,000 jobs across the region. We are an expanding and exciting port.

The ONS reclassification is important for ports of all sizes, because, although a small port may have fewer projects, the parameters are just the same. Our borrowing limit in the Department is £2·5 million. If we were to replace one crane tomorrow, that could cost £4 million. If we need to replace two of them and develop further infrastructure or marine assets, it all starts to add up. In the current financial climate, it is therefore quite sensible to allow trust ports to borrow and invest against their own balance sheets and own income, as opposed to, on any level, being a burden on the Department or having limited borrowing facilities. That is as important for small ports as it is for larger ports.

We have recently signed up one of our main customers, CLdN — formerly Seatruck — to a new 50-year arrangement. Through that arrangement, we hope that the relationship will grow further, but, in order to grow it, we will have to provide new assets and new infrastructure. That will take investment and a lot of growth, but it will be very exciting for the area to be able to create and influence jobs. I will pass over to David, who is more hands-on with that.

Mr David Holmes (Warrenpoint Port): If I may, I will pick up on the education strand of the question. Currently, we have 70 employees, which is as high a number as there has ever been. Five of those employees are apprentices or higher-level apprentices. This year, three of them have started the inaugural Northern Ireland-based stevedoring apprenticeship. To put that in context, over 90% of our employees live within 10 miles of the harbour, so it is keeping it local and within the community. Previous higher-level apprentices who have done engineering, for example, in Warrenpoint harbour have gone on to secure degrees whilst remaining full-time employees. The education dynamic is therefore working really well and is categorically helping retain people locally.

Dr O'Hare: To summarise, the ONS reclassification and the change in category are important to us as a sizeable but smaller port, because it will enable resilience and future growth.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): From the presentations that you submitted, I note that Coleraine harbour has suggested a few amendments to the Bill. In particular, you believe that the word "ship" should be changed to "vessel". You also want to see "shipping" publication changed to "suitable" publication. Is there any particular reason that you have suggested those two amendments? Did you suggest "suitable" publication because that is more relevant to everyday communication? I am very interested in your proposed amendments. I have heard nothing to suggest that those are not reasonable suggestions. Rather, I am trying to get your thoughts on why you suggested them.

Mr Connor: I will first give you my thoughts on changing "ship" to "vessel". Coleraine harbour is unique amongst the four trust ports, because we have second-homers with a north coast lifestyle. It is not an either/or of, "Do you have a holiday home on the north coast or a boat?". They have a boat as well. A big part of what we are planning to do involves furnishing our river. We currently have 200 berths. We are looking to get that number up to 450, which would create critical mass. Doing that will involve marine services, training and the job creation that Bobby just talked about. Legally, "ship" is a peculiar word. We wish to be able to levy fees on all manner of boats. It could be small tourism boats, houseboats or leisure boats: all manner of ships. We therefore think that it would be easier if, instead of "ship", it read "vessel".

On "suitable" publication rather that "shipping" publication, it is exactly as you said, Chair. We are here to talk about what the trust ports want to change in legislation. That is what my history lesson was about. Coleraine harbour is an old harbour that has seen change after change, and it requires another change through more modern legislation. In the modern world, if Coleraine harbour or Warrenpoint harbour is therefore bringing up an issue, does that need to appear in a bespoke nautical publication any more? If it is a local issue, it can be easily circulated on the harbour's website or through the local press. If it is a regional issue, it can be done through a regional spread of media. It is therefore about avoiding cost, because, again, we are the smallest of the four operations.

We recently advertised for a river pilot. We had to go through a specific publication, and it cost something to the tune of £6,000 to advertise the job vacancy. We want to avoid that.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK. Members will ask other questions — the Committee had a conversation beforehand. You have outlined ambitious growth plans for your respective ports and how the Bill could unlock those. Opportunities will be unlocked — yes, there are opportunities for growth, employment and wider community benefit — but how do you manage community relations, particularly where issues arise? We are aware of the issue that pertains in Warrenpoint. We are keen to hear how your ports are dealing with that community engagement piece, both now and into the future. I will start with Richard and then go to Gerard.

Mr Connor: We are publicly appointed. The job of commissioner is advertised and you apply for it. We have three councillors on our commission; it is a cross-party group. Each commissioner has a role within the subgroups. As part of that, you have deep community stakeholder involvement with the other stakeholders within the harbour and also those outside the gate.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Are your master plans and potential growth plans established in conjunction and consultation with the local community to ensure that it can share in the growth and benefit?

Mr Connor: Absolutely. It goes back to what Bobby said. We are engaging with the stakeholders outside. That could be the regional college, the kids on the estates or any manner of things.

Mr Farren: There has been significant engagement with the public, the community and key stakeholders. I referenced the high-performance rowing centre. That would be in partnership with the council and the universities, involving their life sciences and sports sciences. That would be a partnership. The university is keen on student accommodation, and we would sign a 25-year lease for the site now, if we could do it. There has been significant engagement there. There is regular ongoing engagement with the local chamber of commerce, the PSNI and the Honourable Irish Society. They have shaped our 2050 strategy, which we hope to publish by early next year.

Dr O'Hare: We engage with the local community through a range of channels. I will hand over to David to run through all of those approaches, and then I will come back in.

Mr Holmes: We have a community outreach programme and a community fund. We encourage deserving organisations to apply for funding annually. In the past four or five years we have contributed over £130,000 to 140 diverse organisations. We have set up a community forum, which features local businesses and local residents. The most recent meeting was less than a month ago. All issues are on the table, and there is overt and transparent information sharing. Three times a year, we invite elected representatives to come in and hear updates on the organisation and ask questions. We have an AGM, which is open to all. We also deliberately try to organise waterfront activities. This summer was particularly successful. We had the Galeón Andalucia, a fabulous old sailing vessel. It attracted something like 6,000 visitors across the four days that it was moored, free of charge, in Warrenpoint harbour. We pulled back the Waverley, the last ocean-going paddle steamer. It accommodated over 1,000 passengers across a couple of its sailings. We help fund local events. We provided space to help the Wake the Giant Festival dress the giant, and we helped sponsor the Ulster fleadh and the Loughside Festival. We are doing all of those things.

Regarding engagement with the community, over 90% of our employees are local. Our 70 employees are the tip of the iceberg. We have talked about supporting over 18,000 jobs across the region, but CLdN, for instance, employs over 55 people directly in running a twice-daily ro-ro service to Heysham. That is another 55 locally employed people who are part of the community.
There are multiple drivers who visit the port daily to take the imports or exports away. Most of them are local. There is a massive local dynamic. Tens of thousands of people attended the different events in Warrenpoint this summer, and they all took place without any adverse incident or report to us.

Dr O'Hare: As you may know, we are located in the heart of Warrenpoint, right in the town centre. The oldest part of the harbour is the town dock, and we offer spaces there for local cruiser operators or small boat operators. They can hire space and anchor their boats with us all year round. On our walled sea break, we allow the council to operate a number of public events — fireworks events — at Halloween and Christmas. Everything that happens in Warrenpoint is very central and associated with the harbour. There has always been that synergy between Warrenpoint harbour, the people and the town centre, notwithstanding other issues.

Mr Stewart: Gentlemen, thanks so much for coming along today. The Chair has covered a few of my points, but, first of all, I place on record my thanks for your presentations. I do not want to speak for the rest of the Committee, but I certainly recognise the significant economic impact of the legislation. While tight in scope, it could be, and will be, hugely beneficial economically.

I know that Coleraine suggested two technical amendments, and, Gerard, you said that you did not see any need for them. Do you support those technical amendments? Do you see the merit in framing that?

Dr O'Hare: Changing "ships" to "vessels"?

Mr Stewart: No issue with that?

Dr O'Hare: As former chair of the Tall Ships Festival in Belfast from 2009 to 2015, I like the word "ship", but it is [Inaudible.]

Mr Stewart: We do want to start a fight.

Dr O'Hare: I have no issue with it really, if that is what is chosen.

Mr Stewart: That is good. There is no issue with the strengthening and broadening the suitable publication from being just a shipping publication and with potentially even including social media. We can maybe look at a form of words around that. That is good to hear.

You talked about — I am glad that you put this on the record — how there is a belief out there, or a false narrative, that this is privatisation by the back door. I was very firm in my contribution during the Second Stage debate that that is not the case and that trust port status will be maintained. Will you both comment on how important it is to maintain that and do away with any naysayers who suggest otherwise? This is not privatisation by the back door?

Dr O'Hare: It is absolutely not privatisation, and the trust port model is the one that we all support. All of us in the trust port family in Northern Ireland support it, because we see the benefit of it. We see how we can outreach to our communities and benefit them. Everything earned — we are all profitable — is put back in for the benefit of the community and the harbour. It has lasted for so long so successfully, and that is the way that we want it to be.

Mr Stewart: Excellent.

Mr Holmes: I will add to that briefly. I have been briefing our employees that, if the Harbours Bill is passed and enacted, it absolutely categorically does not change the trust port foundation. That is important to our employees, and it is important to us because we believe that that model is very effective and works.

Mr Stewart: Yes, absolutely, David. Do you want to comment, Richard?

Mr Connor: Coleraine is very supportive of retaining the trust port model. It has built-in regional balance. How could you get any more regional balance than Foyle to Warrenpoint and Belfast to Coleraine? Operations are run to the benefit of stakeholders, and surpluses are reinvested. It is all but the definition of what a community interest company would be in the modern day.

Mr Stewart: Exactly. I firmly agree with that. It is important to get that on the record and keep it there to do away with any false narrative that that is not the case, because that will continue to come up.

Will you talk us through the associated risks with any further delays to the harbour orders? Realistically, this could have been done quite a long time ago. I do not want to go over old ground and spilt milk and all that caper, but we could have got here a bit quicker. In my opinion, we need to start making this happen — with proper scrutiny — as quickly as possible. Will you talk us through the potential risks of further delays? What is a realistic time frame for getting those harbour orders passed?

Mr Connor: I will give you a very slight insight into Coleraine's 2050 master plan. The risk is that the aims of that are delayed or not delivered. We would be content with 18 to 36 months. That would be a realistic period. We would not want — we have spoken to the Department's gateways team about it — Coleraine, being "vulnerable" and the smallest of the four, to be the first through that process. Let some of the other, larger trust ports feel their way through the wall. I think that the word is "bandwidth". [Laughter.]

Mr Kieran Grant (Warrenpoint Port): A timeline of 36 months is fine. To go back a step, from an operational point of view, the last time that we took a loan out was in 2018 when we had to replace cranes and forklifts. We had to go to the Department first to seek approval to go over the £2·5 million, which is our limit. We got the loan and we got to replace our cranes. That cycle will come around again soon, where we will have to look at replacing cranes. We do not want to cause any conflict with DFI and its budget, so the sooner this is passed and we are allowed to invest our money and repay the loans commercially, the better it would suit us.

Mr Stewart: That is good to know.

Mr Holmes: It is well documented that ports endure high fixed costs. The infrastructure investments that are absolutely necessary to support utilisation and retain customers are very high. The Chair referenced it. A new crane could cost over £4 million. We are trying to decarbonise all the time, but you can pay a third of a million pounds for a 16-ton electric forklift. Those are big costs. We all listen to the media and to the news, and we have a pragmatic concern. Will DFI have the money, if the legislation is not passed, to enable us to go to it and say, "We would like to borrow £2·5 million"? I doubt that any of us is convinced any longer that the funding would actually be there, so that is an underlying concern that we see the legislation as helping to address.

Mr Stewart: I firmly agree. I do not have much more to say, Chair, other than I firmly recognise the potential of this. I appreciate your coming along today. Certainly, I will be looking to shape it as much as possible to make it a perfect Bill, but we are already nearly there, so I appreciate your feedback today and look forward to engaging with you throughout the process.

Mr Boggs: A lot of what I was going to cover has been covered by the Chair and the Deputy Chair. First, I thank the witnesses for being at the Committee this morning. Apologies that I could not be there in person. We have already talked about how much of an economic impact this could have. I welcome the comments from all the previous speakers in relation to regional balance and the fact that the smaller ports will also feel the real impact of the changes that are being made under the legislation. They could have been done much sooner, as the Deputy Chair said, but hopefully we are getting to that place now.

The contributors from Warrenpoint in particular talked about their level of community engagement and all of the activities that happen with the community there. The local economy feels the benefits of a piece of legislation like this, and you are quick to talk about all the positive community engagement that there is by the port, but it would be remiss of me not to mention that there is an issue in Warrenpoint in relation to the odour. What confidence can the Committee have that, as you start to see increased benefit to the local economy there, local residents will not be put at the other end of that and start to feel even more pressure around the issues that they face? In that regard, what responsibility does Warrenpoint harbour accept for the odour issues that face the community, and what concrete action are you taking, or will you take in the future as you continue to grow, to ensure that residents are protected from any future nuisance?

Dr O'Hare: We recognise and share the frustration of the problems with the Re-Gen odours over the past few years. We do not deny that. We never did. We held our hands up from day one. We have worked hard to hold Re-Gen to account. We have had extensive engagement with them each time that there has been an intermittent odour. We have made some good progress in the past couple of years. We have seen refuse-derived fuel (RDF), the original offensive material, now being exported directly to ships, with only solid-recovered fuel (SRF), which is the non-odorous — meant to be the non-odorous — type, being stored on site. There have been great improvements in the past 12 months, which have been secured with Re-Gen's agreement. Complaints have come down by over 60% in the past 12 months, but that is still not good enough or acceptable for us. We need to keep going in order to get to a final and full solution. We believe that we are on the road to doing that, with the help of others, including all of the stakeholders involved — Re-Gen, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the Minister. We wrote to them all recently again, and we think that we can achieve a medium-term solution in order to put an end to the problem.

Mr Holmes: The issue of an intermittent smell remains an absolute priority for us. None of this legislation will change that.

Mr Boggs: None of this legislation will change that. I think that we are clear about that. The continued growth of an organisation, whatever that organisation is — in this case, your organisation — has an economic impact on a local area. Whether or not the legislation deals with the odour issue is of no comfort to a local community that has experienced nine NIEA non-compliance issues since 2023 and continues to do so. You are the landlord in relation to the cause of that negative impact. While this legislation does not particularly deal with the odour, the Bill hands continued growth and benefit to your organisation and, therefore, to the local economy. Nobody is arguing against the point that was made earlier that Warrenpoint port is a huge local employer. As a landlord, however, what responsibility do you take for the issues that local people have experienced to date? It may be true that complaints have been reduced by 60%, but there are still 40% of complaints there against your previous figures. As the landlord, what responsibility have you taken to date for the negative impact that that issue has had on the community in Warrenpoint? How are you going to ensure that that is addressed now and as you experience continued growth, as you have said you will, under this new piece of legislation?

Dr O'Hare: I will come back on that if you want. As I said, we have never denied that there has been a problem over the past few years with intermittent odours. We have worked hard to get a resolution each time and every time, and we are working towards a longer-term final solution. I remind you that Re-Gen has been exporting waste material out of Warrenpoint since 2012-13. There were no problems worth talking about for the first 10 years. There was an issue for a couple of weeks in 2016, which was way before my time. Beyond that, however, I am not aware of any other issues with odours.

In the second half of 2023, when volume increased on the back of new contracts that had been won — that is public information; there is nothing commercially sensitive about that — some odour issues arose. We immediately held Re-Gen to account for that, and we brought in our own expert — David Graham of PWS Environmental — to investigate what was happening. Within weeks, he had prepared proposals to go forward with a number of new measures that needed to be taken to improve the situation. In fairness to Re-Gen, it signed up to those proposals immediately and we all went forward hoping that that would be the end of the matter. For a number of months, it was. Then, back in the summer of 2024, we found that the issue had returned and we had to take another approach. It was clear that the increased volume of on-site storage was a problem for us. We appealed to the NIEA, Re-Gen and the Minister and the Department to work with us to get a better solution. It took us until last year, but part of that better solution was about asking and convincing Re-Gen to agree to stop storing RDF on-site and transport it directly to the ships for export. We achieved that, which was a big step forward. That is what we would argue has led to the immense improvements over the past 12 months. Despite the perception, there are not 24/7 odour issues there. It is not every day and not even every week. Sometimes, weeks go by without any odour issues, and then it comes up again. We need to get to the bottom of that, and we think that we have a solution that will get us there eventually.

We are responsible, and we have been responsible. Our doors are open to meeting and talking to anyone who wants to address that with us. An open day has been proposed for our port for 2027, so we expect to bring people in through that. We could bring you to our port today, and you would not even know that there was an issue with odour. Most days are like that. We have been responsive; we are not being irresponsible. We are being open that it is there for accounting. We will get to the bottom of it and get a solution.

Mr Boggs: With respect, whether it is intermittent or 24/7, the huge lobby that we have received indicates that it has a significant negative impact on the local community. It is therefore significant regardless of how often it occurs. You need to get to the bottom to it.

I welcome the fact that you are supportive of the Bill. We acknowledge that it does not sort out the issue of the odour, but it will have a positive impact on the economy in Warrenpoint and elsewhere. We look forward to seeing the plans that all ports, including Coleraine — representatives of which are sitting beside you, although I feel like I have forgotten about them — will be able to enjoy under the new Bill. I look forward to working with you all to see it through to Final Stage.

Dr O'Hare: Thank you, Mr Boggs.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Cathal, I will let you in briefly on this.

Mr Boylan: It is just on that issue; I will come back in on the Bill.

Fair play to you for answering the question, but I have to put this to you. I am an MLA for Newry and Armagh, and I have received loads of lobbying, so I know the issues. I do not want this to be a cloud over what we are trying to do with the Bill, but there have been a number of breaches and a number of complaints. I will give you an opportunity to answer this now, because a number of people will be watching in, and we will be expected to ask questions about it. My question is on your engagement with Re-Gen and what you are trying to do with it. Clearly, there have been breaches. People believe that there have been breaches. Whether they are tried and tested or not, I have no evidence, but there have certainly been a number of complaints. I am giving you an opportunity to explain what you are trying to do to work with Re-Gen to address the major concerns that people have raised.

Dr O'Hare: I will address the issue of the breaches. Re-Gen is exporting that waste from Warrenpoint on the back of two statutory approvals: the original planning approval that it got from the planning authorities, to which there have probably been some slight amendments since; and the licence from NIEA, which is the body that issues the licence to Re-Gen that allows it to store on our site and export from the South and from Warrenpoint. You said that there have been a lot of breaches and complaints. We are as aware of them as you are — absolutely. We accept that. We go out and do our own monitoring and find the issue, but we need the other agencies and players in this to support and work with us to get to the bottom of it. There is a simple solution: stop storing Re-Gen bales on site. That would not stop the export, which is very important for Northern Ireland, because we do not have an alternative means of doing that. However, we have to work together to persuade Re-Gen that we will, perhaps, have to move to off-site storage. NIEA needs to be part of that argument as well, and we have taken that to the Minister.

Mr Boylan: Deputy Chair, I will come back in a bit later on.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Yes, thanks, Cathal: I have got your name down. It is an important point to raise, particularly on behalf of those who have raised it with you.

Mr Boylan: I wanted to raise it now, because I want to talk about the Bill later.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): We will bring you back in on the Bill itself at the end.

Mr McMurray: I thank Mr Boylan for raising that point. It is worth raising. I might touch on it slightly but will try to stick within the tramlines of the Bill. This question is as much for Coleraine. I wanted to make the connection between South Down and the River Bann, because I thought that the River Bann starts in the Mountains of Mourne. Maybe our maps are different — I do not know — but that is OK. It is good to see —.

Mr Boylan: They made the decision on a Friday afternoon; it might not have made a good decision that Friday.

Mr McMurray: That is it. I thought that you were going to reference Mount Sandel as well. Maybe that is too far back for Coleraine harbour.

Anyway, the support of the Bill is important. Even those who have raised issues have been generally supportive of the Bill.

We all understand that Ireland is an island economy, and you have given us the numbers on trade and our harbours, so I will not rehash that, but they point out how important all that is. You touched on the multiplier effect and how the legislation would assist that, not least with regard to some of the apprenticeships and training that you referenced. In the interests of our support for the Bill, it would be good if you could elaborate on that.

Mr Farren: Realistically, £250,000 would probably tar our car park. That release and it becoming open to us to borrow commercially would allow us to develop industrial units. A report by Invest Northern Ireland in 2018 said that there was no moving-on space in Causeway Coast and Glens. There are enterprise agencies at 1,000 square feet and 2,000 square feet, but there is nothing at 10,000 square feet. You could achieve £5 per square foot for commercial rents. To build industrial units, it would probably be about £10 per square foot. We see ourselves filling that gap and bringing enterprise from business into the area. We are carrying out consultation, and we are looking at borrowing and, potentially, grant aid against that to bring in businesses associated with the maritime industry, which I talked about — getting 450 berths up and running — and the offshore wind farm market. We need the Bill to come through, and the timeline that Richard is talking about of 18 to 36 months would be timely for us.

Mr Connor: I will add to that from Coleraine harbour's point of view. Bobby mentioned the £250,000 borrowing limit. Imagine the situation turned on its head, with a Minister having cleared 18 acres of waterfront in Coleraine, formed a body to set up a harbour there, given it no annual budget and set a £250,000 borrowing limit. If you were to come back after 10 years to see how that organisation was getting on, there would be nothing there. As Bobby said — it is a glib point — you could not tar a car park for £250,000. The harbour needs to be released. To go back to my history lesson, the harbour has had change after change. The current legislation was probably fairly good when it came in, and it has taken us all to this stage, but it needs a refresh. It needs a change.

Mr Holmes: In optimising our footprint utilisation, we are increasing turnover, which, in turn, has an economic multiplier effect. Having more available funding for affordable, appropriate projects would have a big pro rata impact, with an infrastructure and capacity increase, as well as a geographic capacity increase. It would all be pro rata. If our turnover is £9 million or £10 million now, and we can get on with the projects that we aspire to fulfil, our turnover will go up pro rata, along with employment and all the knock-on effects.

I do not want to hark back to the odour issue, but, to contextualise it, when people talk about breaches, we make it clear that the NIEA and the local environmental health team have not served enforcement notices on Re-Gen in respect of its operation at the harbour, but we do not hide behind that. We could sit here and say that it is fully compliant; we are not hiding behind that. We are working very hard on continuous improvement with the NIEA and Re-Gen, because we know that it can be done better, and we remain absolutely committed to that.

Mr McMurray: I am familiar with Warrenpoint, and I am fairly familiar with the geography of Coleraine. I have driven over the Coleraine bridge enough times and looked in there. I have been to Warrenpoint for various things, not least to visit you, and for general constituency business. I touched on how the Bill would allow development to take place in the respective ports. You said that the port is relatively close to urban residential areas. Knowing Warrenpoint as I do, I know that it has the harbour, the road and the residential areas. How do you envisage the legislation helping to minimise the effects of an industrial operation on the residential areas in proximity to it?

Mr Holmes: One of our expansion strategies, for example, which is hypothetical at this stage, involves 10% of the redevelopment budget extending to the creation of a boundary that precludes noise etc from escaping. Minimising the impact on our community whilst being able to deliver all the economic benefits: that is front and centre of our future considerations.

Mr Farren: The Northern Ireland area plan 2016 sets out clearly what planning there should be within its scope, including where certain elements should be. We are looking at that and engaging with the planning team at Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council on how we can plan it out under our 2050 strategy. What we can and cannot do is very clear. It is not about having industrial units in the centre of town.

Mr Connor: I understand why you asked that question, but, from Coleraine harbour's point of view, I say respectfully that that is a matter for Warrenpoint. I am not up to speed with the individual circumstances of Warrenpoint.

Mr McMurray: I appreciate that, but, as you drive through Coleraine, you see that, while there is not the same proximity, it is a harbour in the middle of the town. It is good to hear that.

Dr O'Hare: Harbours in the middle of a town can be a very positive thing. It is all about how the environment of the harbour unfolds in that context. Our previous estimate of the cost of our decarbonisation expectations, or, certainly, aspirations, was at least £15 million, so there are already major items. We are replacing a lot of old asbestos roofs with new, modern roofs. It is the environment that we create as well as the expansion of the business that will be important.

Mr McMurray: I have one more question, Chair. You both referenced your acceptance of the Bill as introduced. You may have heard the Chair mention, under a previous item, if that makes sense, that there have been communications about article 4 of the Harbours (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. Do you have any concerns about the removal of that power in the previous legislation from the point of view of governance or anything else?

Mr Grant: No. The Department has taken advice on that. As we understand it, that power has never been used in ports. Obviously, other governance structures will remain in place and will not be impacted on by the Bill. All those other governance structures will be in place.

Mr Connor: From Coleraine harbour's point of view, when it comes to the power to direct, we would be worrying about a power that has never been used. That is our take on it.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, folks. Good afternoon, as it now is, Gerard, David, Kieran, Richard and Bobby. It is brilliant to see such energy and ambition for our ports. That is extraordinarily positive. It was a wonderful history lesson on both ports, and it gave us insight to hear that Newry port long predates Warrenpoint port and that it was much larger than Belfast port in years gone by. Gerard mentioned that having a harbour in the middle of a town can be very positive.

Meanwhile, the plan is to build another bridge over our canal and therefore cut off Newry's maritime heritage. I have to call attention to the work of James McArevey on protecting Newry's maritime heritage. I come from a family of seafarers: my great-uncle sailed out of Newry port on a Fisher's boat, the SS Privet, in 1940, but he and the rest of his crew never came home.

Seeing the Galeón Andalucía at Warrenpoint port over the summer was amazing. I was there with my youngster and my wife, and we had a wonderful time. Warrenpoint, as a seaside town and a harbour town, is a special location in the North and should be recognised, celebrated and protected. What projects in your 2018-2043 master plan could be unlocked through the passage of the Harbours Bill and ONS reclassification?

Dr O'Hare: I will first come back to your history lesson. The reason why Newry port was larger than Belfast port in those days was the Newry to Portadown ship canal, which was the first commercial ship canal in the world, older even than the Manchester ship canal, which became operational 30 years after the Newry ship canal. We have a proud maritime history not only in Warrenpoint but along the whole Newry to Portadown canal route. As chair of Tall Ships, I agree with you on the opening bridge — you would expect me to want to be able to bring maritime boats into the Albert Basin — and on all those fronts, and I hope that we can continue to support that.

I will hand over to David or Kieran to talk about our vision for the future and our current master plan, which will be updated.

Mr Holmes: One of the primary projects in the master plan is to increase capacity at the port, be that geographically or with more modern, space-saving equipment. Assuming that the funding does not otherwise become available through DFI, the Bill and the reclassification will enable us to proceed with that part of our strategy and plan. Even since 2018, decarbonisation has become a massive part of everything. Dr O'Hare mentioned the £15 million starting price tag. That is just for us to put basic shore power and a couple of hybrid electric material handlers in situ. The costs are massive, but, if we are serious about progressing the port, which we are, those big-ticket items are unavoidable. The answer to your question is that those two projects in particular will need to be progressed.

Mr McNulty: What are the implications for the lough more generally? Across the water, we have Carlingford marina and, further out to sea, Greenore. What are the implications for the lough of the potential expansion of marina capacity at Warrenpoint, and what knock-on effects will there be on Carlingford and for the people who live near the Port of Greenore?

Dr O'Hare: First, if we bring decarbonisation and electric shore power to our ports and thereby encourage more of the ships that travel across the Irish Sea and up Carlingford lough to be electric or battery-operated in future, that will improve the entire environment for everyone and everyone will benefit. That is the major benefit and is why it is a major ambition. There are other benefits to be seen.

Mr Holmes: Yes. Since 2018, Warrenpoint harbour has reduced emissions by 46%. We are proud of that, but, as Mr Boggs said, there is still 54% to go, so there is a lot of work ahead of us. We increasingly find that ships are getting bigger, so we foresee not necessarily more maritime traffic but, potentially, slightly larger vessels. There is a raft — no pun intended — of legislation that is intended for maritime vessels and ships. There is potential for the impact to be mitigated by the use of different, cleaner fuels and there being less traffic but slightly larger vessels. We will have to wait and see how that unfolds.

Mr McNulty: Gerard, you mentioned flexibility being matched by accountability, and synergy between the harbour and local people, notwithstanding other issues. What are those other issues?

Dr O'Hare: The other issues that I was alluding to were the Re-Gen odour issues that I expected to be raised.

Mr McNulty: You dealt with that by saying that you are working proactively —

Dr O'Hare: Yes.

Mr McNulty: — with the statutory agencies and with local people to ameliorate all the issues and to alleviate the concerns of the local people, who have real and present concerns about the smells.

Dr O'Hare: Our community forum, which we set up a few years back, includes people from groups in various sectors, such as sport and education. It also includes our key senior management staff, and some of our board members attend most of its meetings. The forum includes our on-site tenants and customers, including Re-Gen, so it provides an opportunity for us all to talk: the community has an opportunity to talk directly to Re-Gen and other on-site operators and to us. We embrace the community as much as we can. For example, we have a good and continuous working relationship with the local chamber of commerce. We are a member of the chamber, and we host and facilitate it. We work with other groups; there are many groups in the area that we help all the time. We have community outreach because we are involved with the community; we are of the community. Local people are 90% of our workforce. The wages that we pay every month go into the local economy. We know, accept and respect our position as part of the community.

Mr McNulty: The port facilitated approximately £3·4 billion of trade during 2024 and supported over 18,000 jobs across the North. Those are staggering figures with a staggering impact on the economy, so fair dues to you and your team for making that happen. What are the debt implications of the increased borrowing capacity that the Bill would facilitate?

Dr O'Hare: Sorry: was the question about the implications for debt?

Mr McNulty: Yes.

Dr O'Hare: We have no plans for any immediate large debt. Each commercial decision will be made as a normal bona fide business decision with proper governance and a proper approach. It would have to be evaluated, and there would be a business case and economic appraisal, as with every other

debt proposal. It is a possibility for us to raise debt on the commercial markets because we have assets. We are a trading business, and banks would be comfortable working with trust ports as clients.

Mr McNulty: I have a final question, Chair, if you will indulge me. A wonderful sight on either side of the lough, whether you are standing in Carlingford or on the seafront in Warrenpoint, is the Carlingford Lough Currach Club rowing out of Warrenpoint close to the harbour. What are the implications of the Bill and reclassification for the club?

Mr Holmes: I would not say that there are any implications, but arguably, a successful port can be more helpful and supportive towards its neighbours. We try to support the currach club. For example, we recently simplified berthing for it when it wanted to launch vessels for vulnerable folk. We do not see any implications for the currach club, but it is easier for a strong port to be a strong, helpful and good neighbour.

Mr McNulty: Folks, thank you very much for your evidence.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): You covered a range of issues in those answers. Richard, do you want to come back on the question of borrowing and debt? Gerard covered it, but you were like a coiled spring, I think, waiting to come in.

Mr Connor: I will just follow on from what Gerry said. Coleraine's approach to debt would be prudent investment and borrowing, taking it on for each item case by case. We would put out a strategic outline case for a particular asset, should it be a crane, a fork truck or transit sheds. A business plan would then be drawn up, and, in open-market borrowing, we would look for a 10- or 12-year return. As Bobby said earlier, there is a gap in the Causeway Coast and Glens area for units of 10,000 square feet, maybe because the model per square foot for build to rent does not suit the private sector. In our council area, we get businesses to a certain level and then export them from our area because those facilities are not there. The Harbours Bill will allow Coleraine Harbour Commissioners to enable the building of those units.

Mr Farren: Decarbonisation was touched on. We are looking at hydrogen. We have looked carefully at the Northern Ireland Water example at Duncrue. Hydrogen is a by-product of reducing waste on the site, and Northern Ireland Water's 1 MW facility has provided proof of concept, so it is now moving to 10 MW. We are looking at that model because we have an NI Water plant on-site. We could enhance the local economy by reducing the waste going through the plant by 20% and producing hydrogen. That operation could be future-proofed by supplying hydrogen to vessels and selling it into the local economy. That is one of the examples that we are looking at in our business case.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): That is really useful to hear.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. A lot of issues have been covered, and we have heard a lot of good detail.

Is there partnership working between the four trust ports, or is your sitting at the same table, as you are now, a unique occasion?

Mr Connor: Absolutely not. There is a warm working relationship among the trust ports. Within that, we are autonomous and independent of each other, which probably suits us.

Dr O'Hare: There has always been a close working relationship among all the trust ports. I was a harbour commissioner in Belfast for almost 10 years because of the extended periods. During my first term, I think, Len O'Hagan, who is a Warrenpoint man, was chair of Belfast Harbour Commissioners. We have always had a close working relationship with all the trust ports. We will visit Foyle in the near future to talk about things that it is doing and that we are doing and to come together in synergy.

Mr Dunne: There is good practice.

Dr O'Hare: I am supposed to have been in Coleraine to look at something, but I have not been there yet. We are always collaborating. We are all members of the British Ports Association. We have a lot of common interests, irrespective of our size.

Mr Holmes: We choose not to see each other as competitors.

Mr Dunne: That was going to be my next question.

Mr Holmes: We worked closely with Belfast to help to shape and drive the stevedoring apprenticeship that I referred to. We kept saying, "We're 100% for this" etc. We work together on issues of shared interest.

Mr Dunne: That is good to hear.

Mr Farren: David has pointed out that ships are getting larger, but we are constrained by the depth of the River Bann and stuff like that. Our model differentiates us from Warrenpoint, Foyle and Belfast in what they are doing. As I said, we see our direction of travel as being leisure and tourism.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that. It is good to hear that there is good practice, sharing and so on.

My next questions are for the Warrenpoint folks. Apologies if I missed this one: how many employees do you have? What growth does your master plan envisage over the next five years?

Mr Holmes: We have 70 direct employees. There are probably another 80 employees in the port each day who are not employed by the port but work for CLdN and shipping agents. The drivers take it past that number. As I said, it has been calculated that we support over 18,000 jobs across the region. It is very difficult to do any kind of economic forecasting this wealth because of the geopolitical crises that surround us, but I would like to think that, in five years' time, we will be up by at least another 10% or 15%.

Dr O'Hare: The board would like to set a challenge by saying that that should be 25% to 30%, but that is just a good board.

Mr Holmes: There is the new challenge.

Mr Boylan: Thanks for your responses. I welcome you here. Thank you for your contribution to the Harbours Bill. I have been on the Committee for a long time, and this is very welcome.

Gerard, you talked about Belfast. We had a wonderful visit to Belfast, and we saw its master plan. We were out on the lough, and these two boys were arguing about whether we were on the Antrim side or the Down side of the lough. We saw what it was offering and its ambitious plans. I know that what you have to offer is slightly different, but I think that this is a good opportunity for you to develop.

You mentioned Tall Ships. I am not going to get into the argument about Narrow Water bridge, but there are opportunities in your master plan to develop not only Warrenpoint harbour but the tourism product in the area. People have already asked about this, but, just so that I have a better understanding of it, what are your ambitions for growth over the next 20 years? What do you hope to develop and grow? What about the economic contribution and impact?

Mr Holmes: The Narrow Water bridge is an opening bridge, so it will not constrain anything maritime-wise. We are excited about that, because the crane that will be moved to the site to lift the major components is arriving in Warrenpoint today. That will be shipped out to the Narrow Water bridge site on 70 trailers over the weekend and early next week so that it can handle the components that are due to start arriving the following week.

On tourism, cruise ships have always been warmly received in Warrenpoint. No one seems to object to cruise ships. This year, we have started to make a focused effort to attract more cruise ships. We attended a European cruise convention, and we are talking to several cruise lines and looking to build that up. There is a two- to three-year lead time for visiting cruise ships, so it could be 2029 before we start to see the impact of that, but, from the tourism perspective, we have committed to it. It is expected that the Narrow Water bridge project will encourage and promote tourism. It is one of the potential excursions for visiting cruise line passengers that we are trying to sell as an exciting plus, and it is exciting: not too many new bridges like that are being built.

Dr O'Hare: There is also cross-border potential, in taking visitors across to the South as well as into the Mournes. We have a particularly interesting history: an American history, almost, for half of the Americans, at least. As you know, Joe Biden's family came from outside Carlingford — Lily Finnegan's pub, if you have ever been to it — in the Cooleys. The ship in which Joe Biden's family emigrated to America in 1850 left from the town dock in Warrenpoint. The bridge will make it even easier for us to create a cross-border tourism link, and we hope to be able to do that. That is an obvious and easy one for us.

Mr Boylan: As other members have said, we do not want to delay the Bill. We have an opportunity to move it forward and, hopefully, we will. It must be 10 or 15 years since we visited Coleraine. I appreciated the history lesson. Maybe some of us were on the other side of it. They do things differently on a Friday afternoon now [Laughter.]

Nowadays, some people play golf.

Did you have any conversations with departmental officials on the amendments that you have proposed?

Mr Connor: We did.

Mr Boylan: What response did you get?

Mr Connor: Thank you for bringing that up. The gateways team in DFI, which, again, should be commended for bringing this forward, has said that the amendments may well be able to be taken up in Coleraine's individual harbour orders.

Mr Boylan: I can see the benefits. I know the area that you are trying to sell. You are slightly different, and there are opportunities there.

Mr Connor: We are unique in that. I thought that you were going to ask me about tourism around the north coast. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: You have a good product up there. I wanted to ask about the amendments, because we will be considering them as part of our deliberations.

Mr Connor: I am being led to believe that they can be taken up in harbour orders. That is an option.

Mr Boylan: There are not too many tall ships around Armagh — it is OK for different parts of the country — and the Bann is not over our way.

Mr Connor: A section of the motorway goes over the Ulster canal. If that were removed, you could go into the Bann at Coleraine and come out in Limerick or Dublin.

Mr Boylan: We are working on it around the Blackwater. Thank you very much.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): There are no more questions. Richard, I echo your comments about departmental officials' engagement with you, the other ports, the stakeholders and the Committee. That is to be commended, so I thank you for raising it.

Thank you all for coming along. We appreciate your input to this part of the scrutiny process. At some stage between now and the end of the Committee's deliberations, no doubt, we will be in touch with you to clarify a few points. Thank you for your time.