Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I welcome representatives of Belfast Harbour and Foyle harbour to today's Committee. Some of you are no strangers to many of us. I welcome Dr Theresa Donaldson, chairperson of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners; Joe O'Neill, chief executive officer of Belfast Harbour, Ryan McCready, chairman of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners; and Ian Luney, Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners. I seek agreement from members that the evidence session be recorded by Hansard.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I invite our guests to make opening presentations, after which there will be questions from members. You are very welcome, and it is over to you.

Dr Theresa Donaldson (Belfast Harbour): Thank you, Chair. I am absolutely delighted to be with you this morning. Straightaway, I will hand over to my colleague Ryan from Foyle Port.

Mr Ryan McCready (Foyle Port): Thank you, Theresa. Chair and members, good morning. I am chairman of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners, and I am joined by our chief executive, Ian Luney.

Foyle Port is a strategic trading and utility platform for the north-west cross-border economy. We handle around 2·5 million tons of bulk trade annually, serving agriculture, manufacturing, transport, construction and renewables. At Lisahally, maritime trade connects energy and digital infrastructure to support regional growth and prosperity.

Our position on the Bill is clear: we support the Harbours Bill, the trust port model and the wider reform programme. The harbour orders are a critical and time-sensitive component. The Bill and the orders need to progress in tandem and be completed within this Assembly mandate. Three areas are directly affected: duty, governance and strategy.

First, on duty, commissioners have been entrusted with the port stewardship since 1854. Our statutory responsibilities include improving, maintaining, managing and developing the port for today's stakeholders and future generations. That stewardship carries fiduciary responsibilities for the port's finances and assets, alongside responsibilities for safe navigation, safe harbour operation and long-term sustainability. Continued investment is essential, with prudent borrowing spreading asset costs across their working lives. However, due to the current legislative framework, all port borrowings must score against the Department for Infrastructure's capital budget. Even where the port can raise and repay borrowing, the Department must provide the associated capital budget cover from within its capital departmental expenditure limit (CDEL). Our investment therefore remains dependent on departmental budget capacity, which is subject to competing pressures. The Bill is intended to sever that link, but it cannot do so alone. The harbour orders must address the remaining control relevant to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) classification, so primary and secondary legislation ought to be progressed together. Therefore, we ask the Committee to support expediting our individual harbour order alongside the Bill within this mandate.

Last week, the Committee heard evidence last that other trust ports may accept an 18- to 36-month timetable. We do not. Further delay would prolong the constraints, inhibit investment and delay our strategic plans for regional economic contribution to the north-west region. We therefore encourage the Department for Infrastructure, working with the Department of Finance and HM Treasury, to engage now with the ONS to ensure that reclassification can be expedited and happen as soon as possible.

Secondly, on governance, we welcome clauses 1 and 2. Removing those controls does not remove accountability. We are a trust port, so commissioners are members of the public who are appointed through an open, merit-based process and include some elected representation. That process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland. Accountability is further reinforced through our published annual report and accounts, internal and external audits, community and stakeholder engagement and, indeed, the extensive maritime safety, financial and regulatory regimes within which we operate. We welcome that scrutiny and expect it to continue. We also welcome clause 4, as it provides to harbour authorities the power to issue harbour directions. That will improve our ability to manage the safety and environmental protection of maritime activity across Lough Foyle.

Finally, our strategy translates that duty into delivery through water, people and land. On water, it requires continued investment in marine assets to safeguard our people and all users of Lough Foyle while maintaining high-quality services for our customers and stakeholders. "People" means investing in skills: a flexible, high-performing workforce that is able to operate safely every day and build for the future. "Land" means developing our harbour estate to create capacity for future growth amid global uncertainty, decarbonisation and emerging opportunities. Delivery across all three is predicated upon our capacity to invest prudently, affordably and at the pace required. Ian can expand on those priorities during members' questions.

In closing, our request is clear: progress the Bill and the harbour order together and complete both within this Assembly mandate. That is a practical route to ONS reclassification and greater financial autonomy, while preserving strong governance, public accountability and marine safety. It will enable Foyle Port to invest with confidence and contribute fully to the north-west economy now and for future generations. I will take our written submission as read, and Ian and I will welcome your questions at the end of opening statements. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Thank you.

Dr Donaldson: Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the Committee, thank you for the kind invitation to appear before you today. I am pleased that Joe and I, and our colleagues from Foyle Port, are all sitting in front of you. Our presence sends an important message that, while Northern Ireland's trust ports serve different markets, customers and communities, we share a common ambition: to ensure that our ports remain safe, competitive and capable of generating economic growth and prosperity for generations to come.

At the outset, I thank Minister Kimmins, the DFI permanent secretary and, particularly, the DFI gateways team for the constructive, collaborative and efficient way that they have engaged with the trust port sector throughout the process. I would also like to acknowledge Michael Potter, the Committee Clerk, and, of course, to thank all the members around this table for the strong engagement, interest and scrutiny that have characterised the Committee's consideration of the Bill to date.

The Harbours Bill is the culmination of many years of engagement between government, ports and stakeholders. It reflects a shared recognition that the legislative framework governing the region's trust ports no longer reflects the realities of operating critical and strategic infrastructure in a modern and increasingly competitive environment. Current legislation constrains all trust ports in Northern Ireland, preventing us from maximising the strategic opportunities that exist in all our businesses. Not surprisingly, support for the legislation extends far beyond the trust port sector itself. Businesses, port customers, local councils, communities and wider stakeholders recognise the opportunities that the reforms present to unlock investment, improve competitiveness and strengthen Northern Ireland's strategic infrastructure. That is, ultimately, why the policy direction secured Executive approval and why the Harbours Bill is now before you.

Let me be clear, as Ryan has been, about what the Bill is and what it is not. It is not privatisation, it is not deregulation, and it is not a reduction in accountability, transparency or public oversight. As chair of Belfast Harbour Commissioners, I have maintained the view that, as a trust port with no shareholders, we belong to the people of Northern Ireland. The Harbours Bill and reclassification of our accounting status will not change that. It will help to make our harbours safer, more efficient and better equipped to invest, while preserving the principles that have underpinned the trust port model for generations. It is a sensible and proportionate modernisation of the framework within which trust ports operate.

Belfast Harbour is living evidence of what the trust port model can deliver. We handle around 70% of Northern Ireland's seaborne trade and a quarter of all seaborne trade on the island of Ireland. Independent analysis indicates that the trade that we facilitate contributes almost £9 billion annually to the economy and supports 155,000 jobs across the wider region. Over the past 25 years, we have invested more than £690 million in infrastructure, regeneration, environmental initiatives and communities.

Looking ahead, our master plan sets out a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with up to £1·3 billion of investment in nationally significant infrastructure, support for up to 3,500 homes, growth in trade and clean energy, and substantial economic and social benefits for the region. My colleagues across the trust port sector have similarly ambitious plans for the cities, towns and communities that they serve, as we have heard from Ryan today. However, we do not measure success solely through economic performance. Just last month, Belfast Harbour was named responsible business of the year by Business in the Community Northern Ireland, recognising our commitment to creating positive economic, social and environmental impacts and demonstrating the value that the trust port model delivers for the wider public good.

The challenge is that Northern Ireland's trust ports do not currently operate on the same footing as comparable trust ports elsewhere in the UK. The Bill is important because it is a step towards creating the conditions necessary for the Office for National Statistics to consider the reclassification of the region's trust ports, giving us access to the same financial tools available to many trust ports in England, Scotland and Wales. Put simply, it is about removing a competitive disadvantage. It will enable greater investment in infrastructure, trade, clean energy and economic growth without any burden on the public purse. Reclassification represents a win-win outcome. As Ryan so eloquently explained, it would enable trust ports to prudently finance investment while removing the requirement for the Department for Infrastructure to hold that expenditure cover against trust port borrowing, which, ultimately, would free up the DFI budget at a time of constrained public finances.

Importantly, the Bill would modernise the powers available to harbour masters, strengthening their ability to support navigational safety and manage harbour operations in an increasingly complex maritime environment. The inclusion of a statutory power to give harbour directions is an important enhancement, providing harbour masters with a stronger legal framework in which to manage activities within harbour limits, thereby delivering tangible safety benefits for all harbour users.

From Belfast Harbour's perspective, the Bill represents a measured and legally sound reform. It would preserve the trust port model, maintain important safeguards and accountability mechanisms, improve safety and provide the critical first step towards reclassification. However, that first step must be followed by a second step. The associated harbour orders are critical. Both elements are required if the full benefits of reform are to be realised. Therefore, it is important that the Harbours Bill and the harbour orders progress during the current Assembly mandate.

Chair and members, Northern Ireland cannot afford strategic infrastructure to be constrained by legislation designed for a different era. This is a unique opportunity to improve safety, unlock investment and ensure that all the region's trust ports can fulfil their potential as powerful drivers of prosperity, sustainability and opportunity for years to come. Your support for the Harbours Bill and the harbour orders would provide all the benefits cited throughout my piece, as Ryan has described, across Northern Ireland without adding a single penny of cost to the public purse. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Committee to support the principles and objectives of the Bill and help to ensure that the wider reform programme is completed within this Assembly mandate.

Thank you, Chair. I look forward to your questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I thank you both very much for your presentations. We are deeply appreciative of the huge contribution that your respective organisations make to the Northern Ireland economy. We see that every day. You are the lifeblood of a successful Northern Ireland. We, as a Committee, have always been on hand to support and encourage you in the important work that you do.

Dr Donaldson is right: this has been on the circular for some time. I remember, during my previous time as Chair, sitting around the commissioners' table in Belfast and discussing this very option. That was not today or yesterday.

It is really important to see the progress that we have made, but it is also important not to lose that progress to any further delay. I respectfully understand that. I would like to tease out how that could work in practice and hear your views and thoughts on that.

Both of you mentioned the central element of the trust port model and how important that is to your respective organisations, particularly when it comes to governance. You touched on this briefly in your presentation, but, for clarity, how do you respond to the accusations of some that this is merely privatisation by the back door? How can we ensure that strong governance models are in place for public accountability?

Mr McCready: Thanks for the question, Chair; it is an important one. As a trust port, our position to retain that model is not just something that we came up with during our tenures. I alluded to the fact that the current model has been operating for over 170 years. That model has withstood changes of Government, perpetual cycles of economic decline and the merging of local authorities. The golden thread throughout that is that there were never any shareholders. There are stakeholders but not shareholders. The perpetual cycle to carry that duty forward and to keep an open port — imports, exports etc — has remained. That stands on its own testament. That is a fact of history that we can stand on. It bears down on our shoulders at every board meeting that that is the legacy that we need to continue into the future.

There are those who may have a different opinion, and I encourage them to look at the detail and look into what a trust port model is, including what the governance structures are. I pointed out that it is not just the Department that has a regulatory function in respect of Northern Ireland trust ports. That is a very small, thin entity pertaining to the CDEL borrowings and appointments. Governance is much broader than that. We have port marine safety codes and fiduciary responsibilities and duties. All those duties are in statute, so we have no choice but to follow them. That is exactly what we focus on in governance. Duty has primacy. If, for example, a trust port model was different in the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere in Europe, the Government could decide to privatise ports. That would go against our ethos and against the trust port model. That goes to the exact point that you brought up. Removing the departmental or ministerial power to compel a sale or privatisation strengthens governance and protects it for future generations, not cycles of political mandates, if you will.

Dr Donaldson: I agree with all that. I will also say that the accountability is very strong. I am accountable to the Minister who appoints me. For my appraisal every year, I work extremely closely with the permanent secretary and all the officials in the Department, as does the leadership team. We have four councillors on the board of the Belfast Harbour, who are very clear about accountability and governance. That will not change. Nothing will happen to change the appointment of councillors to the board of Belfast Harbour. I know that the harbour orders have yet to be produced and that they will give that level of detail, but our understanding is that the chair will remain a public appointment, albeit there may be a different mechanism for appointing other board members. The role of chair is extremely important from that point of view, in that it creates a golden thread from the Department right the way into the organisation.

The trust port model has worked extremely well. From Ryan and Ian's perspective, Foyle Port is something to be extremely proud of, but so is Belfast. You need only come down to Belfast Harbour — I know that many of you have already visited — to see what can be achieved. All finances raised through the port are invested back into the port, and that has led to the wonderful development that you can see before you. It is also crucial for the maintenance of the primacy of the port and to make sure that the port continues to be somewhere that our customers choose to do business. As you will know from our master plan, we are planning a major infrastructure development in our Stormont wharf, which will cost at least £100 million. We plan for that kind of expenditure years in advance and are accumulating the funds that we will need to spend. With any model in which you have shareholders, that money would not be there; it would probably go out of Northern Ireland into some insurance company or whatever. In the trust port model, all of that funding is retained for the people of Northern Ireland and the businesses and customers with whom we do business. I have worked in other public bodies, as you know, and I think that this is a really good model. It retains governance and accountability, but it gives freedom and agility to move quickly and to follow up on opportunities. Joe will expand on that and reflect on some of the businesses that we have coming into the harbour.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I thank you both for that. I was struck by one of the things that you said — it goes to the heart of the Bill, and maybe Joe or Ian could elaborate. It is on the point around ensuring competitiveness. How do the current arrangements differ from those of your trust port colleagues across the UK? On ONS reclassification, the borrowing point and what that unlocks and enables is a key point for the Committee. I would like a bit more detail on the potential investment opportunities that you see the potential reclassification bringing to your respective areas and on what the wider community impact would be. Whomever is best placed to answer may go first.

Mr Ian Luney (Foyle Port): I will take that and then hand over to Joe. The ONS reclassification is really, really important to Foyle Port. In fact, it is fundamental as we try to plot our way through the next five, 10, 50 years as a trust port. The current public corporation status has created an unintended constraint on our ability to borrow. Whilst the numbers for Foyle Port are entirely different from those for Belfast and for Warrenpoint, the issue is the same. As we look to borrow prudently, as part of our Treasury management function and using our own reserves, we run into constraints because of the financial situation in which the Department and Executive find themselves. That is far from ideal. We want to invest in capital projects and long-term projects, and we are doing that. We are committing £22 million to the port in our current five-year strategy. That is a significant amount for us. That is looking at quayside assets, maritime assets, land for future expansion, the modernisation of the port, our people and decarbonisation. To do that, we must have access to prudent borrowing. If the ONS reclassification lands us in the status of moving from public to private, it will allow us to do that and to access the commercial banks to secure that money. I am happy to take questions around governance and how prudent that would be at a later date.

I will give an example so that you can see how material this is for our duty, never mind our growth and expansion. Our annual turnover is around £15 million in a good year, and, despite the challenges, there have been two or three solid years. Last year, we invested £4 million in a quayside asset. That is almost one third of our revenue. It is also about a third of the reserves that we have built up, and it comes off our balance sheet out of our cash reserves. Ideally, as you would for a long-term asset such as a house or car, you would borrow prudently. We have been unable to do that. We have engaged for almost two years with departmental officials on a loan of £3 million. Through no fault of the officials — it is more to do with the financial situation that we find ourselves in — the money has not been available. Eighteen months on, we have not received any of it. Even if we were to go to commercial banks to secure the money, which we could do, the Department would have to provide the CDEL cover, and it has asked us not to do that. As good corporate citizens — our relationship with the Department is important — we are trying to navigate that. Essentially, if that continues, we run a risk. We will be prudent with cash reserves for the next five years or so, but, if that were to continue, we would start to drain the resource and the ability to invest in long-term value for not just the port but the north-west.

Chair, you also mentioned communities. I will take a little bit of time on that. The communities around us are among our crucial stakeholders, alongside our staff, customers, the council, chamber, university and college partners. We engage with them all of the time, specifically communities. We have a dedicated stakeholder liaison officer, a community liaison officer, who works with the community, and a dedicated working group at board level. We call it the stakeholder engagement group, but it is focused on our local communities. It is led by one of our independent commissioners. It takes up board time, and the issues and opportunities for the community are reported quarterly at board level. It is a real-time part of our core decision-making.

We have a strategic stakeholder engagement action plan that is approved by the board every year. In that, we target actions that will support our communities: for example, our diverse communities, as defined in section 75, or our charity of the year, which, we are proud to say, is nominated by our staff. This year, the charity is Foyle Women's Aid, which supports women and addresses the challenges of domestic abuse. Last year, it was HURT (Have Your Tomorrows), a charity that deals with addiction in the north-west. The year before that, it was a mental health charity. We are active and proud of our involvement in the community. The chair and I continue to engage regularly with our communities to understand and address their issues and concerns, and we do that in real time. Any issues that pop up will be dealt with by our operations team.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): What is your current employee number?

Mr Luney: We have around 100 direct employees of the port, but, with our customers and the other activities on the port land, there are around 1,500 indirect employees.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): In the event that the Bill does not pass and we do not get reclassification, are there consequences for the wider investment opportunities that the port envisages? Will there be consequences for your ability to expand if the Bill does not progress?

Mr Luney: Yes, 100%. We are self-funding. As we look to expand and deliver our duty through investments in pilot boats, cranes, tugs and whatever else, we will have to prioritise various things.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I will put the same question to you, Joe. Will you start by touching on the different competitive nature of colleagues in other trust ports?

Mr Joe O'Neill (Belfast Harbour): Yes. There are two ways to look at the competitive position and the disadvantage. From the external perspective, we are not operating on a level playing field when we compete for substantial foreign direct investment projects against other trust ports in GB. The borrowing constraints and complexities that we face are not faced by the trust ports in Scotland, England and Wales. In 2015, Scotland, with the Harbours (Scotland) Act, moved to address the very same constraints that we face. That Act addressed the burdens that the ONS classification had created. By successfully delivering the legislation, ONS reclassified the Scottish trust ports as private corporations for accounting purposes only. It is slightly technical, but we are dealing with a technical fix to an accounting classification. Scottish ports were constrained in making investments by their borrowing complexities and limitations. In particular, the Port of Aberdeen wanted to make a very significant investment in a new quay for offshore wind facilities. It wanted to borrow significantly to fund the project. Being freed of those constraints allowed the port to go ahead and deliver the project and provide substantial extra capacity for offshore wind. Similarly, ports in England and Wales can borrow and are not held accountable against the CDEL budget of the Department for Transport. There are emerging opportunities, particularly in offshore wind, and we have an opportunity to attract investment. Offshore wind generally brings significant capital expenditure projects to build the capacity, and we need a multiplier of technical capacity for offshore wind. We could find ourselves constrained and unable to fund that type of investment.

From an internal perspective, we handle 70% of NI's seaborne trade. Our core objective is to provide the most modern, efficient and effective port capacity to support importers and exporters. We want to do that ahead of the curve, before there is a demand for it. Port infrastructure investment has become particularly expensive since the COVID-19 pandemic and the escalation in construction costs. The big-ticket price to construct a major quay or terminus means that very few projects will now cost less than £100 million. We need to manage the cycle through our own generated reserves, which Ian mentioned. We can see that we will need access to borrowing to manage those large contracts and the fluctuations that come with payments over a 12- or 24-month period. We do not want to find ourselves constrained and unable to deliver the modern capacity ahead of time for importers and exporters. There is the internal market competitiveness piece and the attractiveness to foreign direct investment.

On the competitiveness of all ports, we largely serve our internal NI communities.

We have our own regional communities. We are all suffering the same consequences and facing the same competitive challenges. We all have the same desire to address the complexities that we face and to become even more competitive and attractive to investment, be that internal investment in the marketplace or external investment.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): We know your vision for the harbour, because you mention it in your master plan. For the purposes of the Committee, will you outline what the broad level of major headline investment would be were the Bill to progress and enable you to borrow accordingly? If the Bill did not pass, how that would impact on your ability to grow those aspects of your vision, as set out in the master plan?

Mr O'Neill: In May of this year, we launched our master plan. Up to 2050, there would be £1·3 billion estimated capital, purely for port infrastructure; I will speak about estate regeneration separately. Within that, there are three horizons. The first horizon takes us up to 2029, with £313 million of capital investment. We are substantially through that investment already. That is all funded from our existing reserves. We had to tailor that capital plan and match it to our anticipated reserves on the premise that we may not have access to borrowing. That was a limiting strategic plan. It could have had higher ambition with higher capital expenditure, but we limited ourselves just in case we did not have borrowing. There would be no impact on delivery in that first horizon, because we are already committed to that and delivering against it.

The second horizon is 2030-2040, which is £484 million, and, then, 2040-2050 is about £0·5 billion. We are capable of funding that on a long-run basis through our reserves and the cash flow that we generate each year: our profitability and surplus. However, we can see there being moments during that 20-year cycle at which we face funding constraints because of the magnitude of the contracts that we would be required to enter into. It is at those points that we would need to have borrowing. Borrowing would enable us to go faster and achieve the investments faster.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): In a sense, the Bill would give you a clear landscape to be able to project and invest in a way in which —.

Mr O'Neill: Yes. Chair, we identify in the master plan, but do not comment on them in too much detail, that there are about £500 million to £750 million of regeneration opportunities over the next 20 to 21 years. As it sits today, we could not fund any of that. If we had borrowing, we would be able to participate in delivering those projects.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): What are the current employee numbers at Belfast Harbour?

Mr O'Neill: Two hundred and twelve.

Mr Luney: May I pick up on the point from a Foyle Port perspective?

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): You may, and both organisations can also answer this question briefly. You talked about prudence in borrowing. It is important that the Committee hears what existing safeguards are in the current framework and would safeguard against reckless borrowing, on anybody's behalf, if the Bill were to pass.

Mr Luney: I will pick up on the point about the opportunity for Foyle Port. Our focus is, as Ryan mentioned, on primacy of duty. The Bill will allow us to continue to invest to deliver on the trade aspect, the quayside activities and the marine stuff — all of that core duty. In addition, as we look to build our revenue resilience — this has been our strategy for a while — we are looking at our landside. We have about 270 acres of land around the port, within the harbour development zone. Investors are already investing on our land, building things like a biomass plant. Statkraft is building new technology to support renewables on our systems. We have an ongoing battery project. A large data-hosting facility is proposed. Through our investment in land and getting that land ready, we are looking for third parties to make significant investment in the north-west. We want a clustering effect around the port up in the north-west, which has beside it power stations, an electricity transmission grid and a gas transmission grid. It is a brilliant place to cluster and attract further investment with a credible platform for growth that will drive the regional economic position of the north-west of the island of Ireland. That is why the Bill is so important for us: it allows us to make our investments, and it allows third parties to come in on the back of that success to make other investments.

On the question about borrowing, the Bill and the draft harbour orders will change nothing about how we approach borrowing, other than that we would not be reliant on the Department. As a trust port, we will continue to have robust governance that aligns with UK best practice. I know that there is a draft code of practice to follow from the Department, but our governance is second to none. We have a board that meets nine times a year. That board has subcommittees on audit and risk. Every investment decision that we make today and in the future will have a lot of scrutiny, including at those committees and at the plenary board, and will have to be justified by rock solid business cases. Nothing will change around that.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I have a couple more questions before we go to members, but does anyone have anything to add regarding safeguards against reckless borrowing?

Mr O'Neill: We can currently borrow. It is not that the Bill would create an opportunity for borrowing. The current legislation provides for us to borrow, but there are constraints because of how it counts against the Department's CDEL budget. We recognise that, if the legislative changes are achieved, there would be open-ended borrowing. Hopefully, you will have seen very clearly through all our submissions on the adoption of prudent borrowing that, if we were to have the opportunity to access borrowing in an unconstrained manner, that would be hugely important to us and to our port users.

Belfast Harbour Users' Group (BHUG) has engaged with us consistently over the past six or nine months to ensure that users understand how we will approach the borrowing opportunities and how we will do it prudently. We have made a commitment to BHUG that we will share our borrowing policy with it upfront and that we will continue to report on how we are approaching borrowing, how we are managing our borrowing and what we are using our borrowing for. We have been very transparent with BHUG and are committed to being so once we get reclassified in order to demonstrate that it is prudent borrowing. The market will also limit us. The banks that we turn to in order to obtain funds will have their own market conditions, which will limit us. In any event, we are self-imposing further prudent limitations on our borrowing.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK. You know that it is the tail end of a mandate and that there is a heavy legislative programme in a confined period. However, both of your organisations have mentioned the importance of the Bill and the orders. Ryan talked about those proceeding in tandem and certainly in this mandate. I would like to tease out why, in your view, that is so important to the progress of the Bill. What have you identified in the harbour orders that is so essential that they must be delivered in tandem with the Bill, taking into account the time pressures? I need to hear exactly why you believe that that particular point is so important.

Mr McCready: The rationale for why they should be expedited together is not just so that we can borrow more without CDEL. It is inextricably linked to ONS classification. I want you to cast your minds back to 2009, when there was a failed attempt here. After that, in 2010, you called officials to the Committee and asked what lessons had been learnt. Two things came up. The first was the time pressure, and the second one was, critically, the lack of ONS assessment or guidance. You got ONS guidance last week. ONS has offered up a pre-assessment. We do not know the detail of that. I would encourage the Department to utilise that in tandem, but the point is that that is not a blocker. That will not predicate or dictate how you shape or scrutinise the harbour order and the Bill.

It is like a pre-application discussion (PAD). If you are doing a housing project, you do a PAD for free, and you get feedback on its policy and alignment to the thresholds. The specific thresholds that were mentioned are about control. Last week, ONS said that, if the Department and Minister appoint the majority of board members, that is a perceived control, and linked to that is the CDEL piece. That is at the heart of reclassification. The Bill does two thirds of it, but, from our understanding and from what we heard the ONS official said here last week, that does not get you over the line with ONS. Therefore, I encourage the DFI officials, through the Department of Finance, to get whatever drafts we have now in front of ONS for it to have a quick look. That will not hold anything else back. We can keep scrutiny going and keep the Bill going, but we need ONS to have a first look. We need members to look at the individual harbour orders to see how they can come together as one reform package, rather than being in isolation, to achieve the intended effect. That is the key point that I would like to land on and take forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Received and understood.

On clause 4 — this question is directed at Belfast Harbour Commissioners — have you received any indication from the Department regarding the process and timescales for obtaining authorisation orders?

Mr O'Neill: Yes, we have, so we are comfortable. We raised five very technical, minor points about the Bill's wording. We have had really good engagement with and feedback from the Department on all of those points, and we are entirely comfortable with its position and response. I think that the Department has communicated that to you as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK. I am going to move to members. I have more questions, but our time is limited, and I think that members will flesh those questions out as we go through. Thanks very much for taking those questions.

Mr Stewart: Folks, thanks so much for coming along today. Thanks for not only your evidence today but your engagement throughout the process. It has been really useful. I really look forward to getting to Foyle port. I will follow up on the invite, as will, I am sure, the rest of the Committee. I have had the privilege of visiting Belfast port on a number of occasions, including recently. I do not want to speak for the rest of the Committee, but I was blown away not only by what is happening there at the minute but by the grand plans in the 2050 master plan, which are fantastic for Northern Ireland plc. I also congratulate you on your recent award. It is fantastic to see. The impact that you make to Northern Ireland, to not only its economy but its social footprint, is absolutely huge.

The Chair has covered many of the details of the Bill, but I want to ask about a few others. Will you outline how the 2050 master plan for Belfast aligns with both Executive and local government priorities, and how key it is for Northern Ireland's economic offering as a whole?

Dr Donaldson: I will kick off, and Joe can join in. There is no document that we produce that is not widely consulted on. We work extremely closely with Belfast City Council and have an excellent relationship with it. Four Belfast city councillors sit on our harbour commission board. I have frequent meetings with the head of the Civil Service, Departments and permanent secretaries. We are very aligned with the draft Programme for Government and with council plans. We mention in our master plan things such as housing, which is a massive social pressure across Northern Ireland but particularly in Belfast. We have really huge plans for housing, as Joe said. There is progress on Loft Lines already, and we have other projects planned.

Ian and Ryan both referred to communities. We have a very strong community focus. One per cent of our profits are committed to community projects — very much grassroots projects. Councils really like to get right down into the grassroots of a community. We also make sure that pump-priming finances are available for some community groups that would not otherwise get the opportunity to apply for finance.

Joe mentioned some of the big infrastructure projects that we have outlined, such as the £1·3 billion work on the port. People on the street will not be aware of that, but ports are very niche. We need to do those projects in the port and communicate with our customers. Some 70% of Northern Ireland's trade comes in and out of Belfast port. Without that, there would be no food on your table. Ports are essential to our way of life. We, as stewards and public appointees, all carry the responsibility to manage those ports for the people of Northern Ireland. We have to make sure that the ports are fit for purpose. That is largely what our master plan says about port primacy: we will commit those funds to make sure that our port customers and businesses are wisely served over the next 25 years so as to enable them to do what they are very good at, which is bringing business in and out of our port.

Mr O'Neill: The master plan exercise was by far and away the most extensive consultative process that we have ever embarked on, and deliberately so: we wanted to get as many insights and views to shape it as possible, because we knew how important it is for Belfast city and the wider economy. We mapped out 230 stakeholders and engaged with them. We met 50 individual organisations specifically to get their feedback. We also had four public engagement sessions. We were very comprehensive in our outreach and our responsiveness in taking on board the feedback that we received.

The master plan aligns completely with our values. We have four values, which are to be people-focused, open, responsible and trustworthy. When we looked at how we were going to plan for and ultimately deliver a master plan, we decided that it would be done entirely through those four values. I hope that the Committee recognises that openness and transparency in a lot of what we do, particularly the reclassification request and the master plan.

Mr Stewart: Absolutely. I was blown away when we saw it. It is great to hear, on the record, how it integrates with national and local government priorities.

Ryan and Ian, how do the economic priorities integrate with the Executive priorities in the Programme for Government and the priorities of local government in your area?

Mr McCready: Deputy Chair, thank you. You and the Committee are invited, so please come back to us with a date. We would very much welcome hosting you up there.

Your question was on policy alignment. When we as a board look at strategy, whether it is horizon 3 of the master plan or the current five-year strategy, we look at alignment, specifically at what has been approved or funded in the Programme for Government. Ian will expand on regional balance, which is key to what we are doing given our geographic location and all the other metrics that are used for council areas. That is one that we can expand on. It is not just about this Executive's Programme for Government; we also look to the Republic of Ireland. We look at Shared Island opportunities and, equally, at any policy alignment where we can benefit from UK and east-west trade. There have been many policies in the past number of years. Not all of those have been successful, whether it be free ports, enhanced investment zones for us or AI growth zones. We are feeling left behind in some shape or form when it comes to policy alignment: we are only really attached to the Programme for Government. Ian, will you expand with some of the details, please?

Mr Luney: Our master plan was done in 2018, and we will be moving into a new cycle of master planning in the near future. There are strategic cycles that fall under the master plan. We are halfway through the current five-year plan. As we sat down to do that, we engaged extensively with our stakeholders. I have mentioned some of them. The key ones are economic enablers, academic partners, the council and the community. One of the starting points is to consider what our strategic advantages are given where we are. I outlined some of them when talking about the infrastructure. There is not just the port but other strategically critical national infrastructure in the north-west.

Having identified our strategic advantage, we look at the policy need and the direction of travel. It is important to say — Warrenpoint is in a similar position — that we have a cross-border opportunity. We straddle both sides. Lough Foyle is our responsibility and duty. There is no quibble between the Irish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive or the UK Government about who has responsibility. That in itself is a strategic advantage for us in cruise tourism. Our strategy is aligned on economic growth and facilitating trade through imports and exports.

On our land side, our strategy is aligned on thinking about the low-carbon energy technologies that we need to decarbonise our economy North and South. We then look at the offshore opportunities that will develop off the north coast. They are lagging behind the east coast for sure, but we see those coming in 10 years' time, so we want to be ready. On cruise opportunities, our cruise numbers have gone up from 22 this year to 36 next year, and they could increase with the right infrastructure in place. That is aligned with a Northern Ireland strategy around tourism and regional balance of the economy.

On data, thinking about how much data is now used by every element of government and how it benefits society, we need some means of storing data in the right location that is the right size and has the right technology. We have that in the north-west. It is nothing to be frightened of; it aligns with the new demand needs on the energy system, it will help to rebalance the grid and it will help to secure renewables. All of our strategy is aligned with policy in Northern Ireland, in Ireland and UK-wide.

As Ryan mentioned, we have been less successful in securing UK Government policy in Northern Ireland such as AI growth zones and enhanced investment zones. Those would have been fundamental drivers of economic growth in the north-west. We will continue to push for them.

Mr Stewart: It is fantastic to hear from both organisations about not only the growth to date but the ambition. We recognise how important this draft legislation, while technical in nature, is in unlocking your further potential.

The Chair and you have done really well in articulating the borrowing aspects and the responsibility around borrowing. It is welcome that you have put on record the fact that this is not privatisation by the back door. I was keen to point that out in the Second Stage debate, as were others. It is important to put that on the record just to do away with any false narrative. There is also the priority and the essential nature of the trust port model, which, I know, is the backbone of how your operate.

On clause 4, Belfast Harbour has suggested a few drafting amendments. Joe, you talked about those. Last week, you will have heard Coleraine Harbour suggest a couple of other small amendments. Have you any other amendments that you want to be made? I know that you worked hand in glove with the Department in drafting the Bill and assisted in that. Are there any other further amendments that either of you thought worthwhile?

Dr Donaldson: No.

Mr Stewart: Do you have any thoughts on the two amendments suggested by Coleraine Harbour? I know that there was the potential for them to be addressed in the harbour orders and would be keen to thrash that out.

Dr Donaldson: We are content with the Bill.

Mr Stewart: You are content with it as it is drafted?

Dr Donaldson: We are content. As Joe mentioned, we are grateful to the gateways unit, which worked extremely closely on the drafting of the Bill with Natasha Sayee, who is our communications officer, and Maurice Bullick, both of whom are behind us in the Public Gallery. We are content with the Bill and congratulate the gateways unit on the work that it has done in what, as you said, has been a very tight window. We are happy with it.

Mr Stewart: OK.

Mr Luney: We are also content with the drafting of the Bill. The issues that Coleraine Harbour raised relate to matters of interpretation. We have no concerns with the drafting or in relation to their concerns. Although we have no concerns, it would be helpful to get the clarifications that Belfast Harbour requested; we would welcome early clarification on those issues. I know that Belfast Harbour and the Department are working on that. We fully support the Bill as it is.

Mr Stewart: Excellent. To get to the point that we are at and not succeed would be lamentable. We have all been pushing to get it there at every opportunity. Last week, we heard from the ONS about the need to do the preliminary work behind the scenes, which Ryan rightly talked about. There will be a role for the Department of Finance and potentially the Finance Committee as well. What work on the harbour orders is continuing and needs to continue with the Department behind the scenes to make sure that everything is in line and ready when the Bill, hopefully, gets Royal Assent at the end of the mandate?

Dr Donaldson: We will continue. As Joe and I both said, and as we have heard from our colleagues, the Department is working hard on this. From the contact that we have had with MLAs and political parties, we know that we have the support that is needed to get it through. Think about all the other things going on in Northern Ireland: this is a reform that will not cost a penny.

Mr Stewart: Exactly. It is a no-brainer.

Dr Donaldson: It is new money coming into the system at a time when, as I heard on the news this morning, children do not have dentists. We are talking about bringing money into a system that is cash-starved. As far as we can see, everybody has put their shoulder to the wheel and is pushing as hard as they can. We cannot see any impediments. We are hopeful that we will get to where we need to go and that that money will come into the system, because it is badly needed.

Mr O'Neill: We were encouraged by ONS's attendance at the Committee meeting last week and by its positive commentary, including the representatives' reference to a short timeline — there is a three-month horizon — and their openness to looking at it on a pro forma basis. When this was last looked at, in 2009, that was not the experience with ONS. At that time, ONS was not open and did not engage — it did not reveal its views and timelines. We are seeing a very different approach from ONS this time, which is welcome if we can get the right legislative changes for it to reconsider.

Mr Stewart: Absolutely.

Mr McCready: Maintain momentum. Get the harbour orders, wherever they are at in their drafting, and start scrutinising them. We have done a lot of work with the officials behind the scenes, so the orders should not be far off the mark; they just need your scrutiny. Make sure that the checks and balances are ready, push forward as one, and let us execute the reform.

Mr Stewart: Absolutely. It is important to put on record the work of the Infrastructure Department staff.

Dr Donaldson: Yes.

Mr Stewart: Those officers have been pushing hard and have engaged with the Committee. We will do all that we can to keep this going as quickly as possible.

Dr Donaldson: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Thank you. To add to Dr Donaldson's point, it is a Bill that has cross-party support, which is crucial. It is crucial that everybody applies their will and determination to make sure that we get it right and that we do so in a timely way.

Mr Boylan: You are very welcome. It has been a long fight for everybody. A lot of questions have been asked, but I have a couple of points to make, because it is important to clarify where we are. Theresa, you talked about the cost, but the question for us is whether it is the right thing to do, which it is. We went down to see you in the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' office. This place is not as plush as the place we were in on that day. That was a good visit, where we saw your ambition and the opportunity. That is the way I look at it, and it is the way that most of the Committee members have looked at it since we have had a conversation about it. It is important.

I want to marry it up for both organisations. Ryan, when you send me an invitation, make sure that you send me to the right address, because I have been to London and I have been to Derry, but I have never been to Londonderry. [Laughter.]

Send me to the right address: just put "Foyle port" or the townland name, and I will be able to find it.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I am sure that you will find it.

Mr Boylan: I will follow the Chair; he will definitely know where it is.

You talked about marrying up the legislation and said that there have been good conversations with the Department. From my time of doing primary and secondary legislation, I know that there are gaps where people lose out. These questions are for both organisations regarding your plans and future programmes. First, if the legislation is not married up, what could be achieved in a shorter time? Secondly, you spoke about strong engagement with the gateway team and everybody else. The Committee scrutinised that properly and supports it, and we would like to see that progressed as well. Realistically, where are we at with the primary and secondary legislation? What if this does not come to fruition? We could get it through in the mandate, but there are other elements.

Dr Donaldson: As you know from having visited us, we are proud of what we have achieved, and I know that Foyle colleagues feel similar. We have achieved that at no cost, because it is a trust port and the profits go back into the port. However, we are saying that we could do more, and that is important. Joe outlined the competitive nature, nationally, of the business that we are in. In some respects, Belfast port is ahead of the pack. We are the only port on the island of Ireland with a berth that is capable of wind turbine assembly. At a time when energy costs are going through the roof and we need clean energy — other investments are happening, as we have heard about today — we need to move forward, and there is a competitive process to that.

We are disabled because of the amount of money required. We are building a berth at the D3 cruise terminal. I am not sure if you have been to see that, Cathal, but we have had other MLAs down to look at progress there. That is a £99 million investment that came from the accrued profits of the port. There is a limit to that, however, and the competitiveness is not going to go out of the sector, and construction costs and everything else are going only one way, which is through the roof. We can see there being huge disadvantage in what we will be able to achieve for our customers if we are not in a position to borrow.

Mr O'Neill: We have talked a lot about the financial consequences of not being in a position to borrow, but I will move away from money. If the harbour master was here, he would be shouting this in my ear: there is an important safety aspect to the legislation, which is the power for harbour masters in our respective ports to provide harbour directions. The harbour masters in the ports here want that power. The vast majority of other ports across these islands enjoy harbour master direction. If the Bill falls, we would lose the upsides of not only the investments but the ability to deliver a really important marine safety measure.

Mr McCready: Thanks, Cathal. I welcome your supportive comments. They are great to hear. We do not get together often, so sometimes we are in the dark about where the Committee sits. The Committee meetings of last week and this week have been very reassuring, and I hope that that continues.

Three things could happen. The Bill could go through as is with no order. That would have the positive impact that Joe mentioned, namely of delivering harbour directions for our harbour master. That would enhance marine safety, so it would be a positive. The second thing that could happen is that the Bill and orders go through in tandem, which would complete all three of the ONS thresholds in respect of the CDEL issue. The other option is that nothing goes through and we are left as we are now, which is with constraints.

I will talk about the implications. With the final option, because our port is smaller and does not have the cash in hand to continue to reinvest in perpetuity, we may struggle to keep the assets going for a long time. Not only that, when we do well, the stakeholders do well. When ports do well, the regional economy benefits, whether through direct jobs, indirect jobs or the GDP-type stuff — "gross value added" or whatever term economists use. The point is that the Bill does not just affect us as ports. We will sustain the port and fulfil our duties as best we can, but we want to contribute further to regional balance in our part in the world and also to the wider economy of Northern Ireland. There are implications that will be felt differently depending on the outcomes of the Bill alone or the Bill and orders in tandem, which is our preferred option. We will give our full support to that and continue to work with officials in the scrutiny of the orders.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate that. I see the opportunities for the north-west, because I look at it as a region. We have been down to Belfast and have seen the master plan. The thing for me is this: you were talking about having 100 employees plus 1,500 jobs ancillary to that and whatever else is there. That is an important economic generator.

Mr Luney: May I give you some other numbers, to tease that out? Our strategy is based on a slightly different model from that of Belfast Harbour, because of our size. We do not generate the profits that Belfast can generate — I wish that we did — but we still generate significant profits. Nonetheless, if the Bill and the orders go through, we will be able to catalyse that growth by being able to borrow and invest more. However, we will do that in partnership with other investors. We are not proposing to build a power station, a battery storage facility or whatever. We have the infrastructure — the land, the connectivity, the roads and all that — in place so that third parties can invest in low-carbon technologies, offshore wind, green manufacturing, grid stability, data hosting or whatever it might be. We employed an international independent consultant to look at the economics of our strategy and master plan. If the brakes were taken off — I will use that phrase — so that we could invest and others could invest at the scale that, we think, they can, the GVA for the north-west region would be nearly half a billion pounds by 2036, and 5,000 jobs could be created. If — it is a big "if" — we can deliver our strategy in partnership with other investors in those technologies clustering around Foyle port, it will be a massive, game-changing opportunity for the north-west.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate that. As I said, it is our role to scrutinise. We need a better understanding. I will finish on this point, Chair: it is good that a lot of good conversations are going on, but, with the best will in the world, we need to get on with it. If the point that you are making today is about marrying the two pieces, the Committee needs to look seriously at that. There is no point in being half in and half out. I know that you will be able to do stuff, but let us try to marry it up.

Mr Harvey: This is a question for Dr Donaldson. You said that we were not doing as well as the rest of the UK and that this might make us more competitive. You called it a win-win, but you went on to say that it was just a first step. What is the next step and the one after that?

Dr Donaldson: Thank you for the question. Joe talked about the competitive situation there, because the trust ports are able to borrow and to avail themselves of opportunities that we simply cannot access at the minute. They can attract opportunities that our having more borrowing potential would enable us to attract. The first step is to move through the process of the Harbours Bill, the harbour orders and then ONS reclassification. We have to ask for that. We have to apply for it. There are no guarantees. We hope that we will meet — this goes back to Ryan's point about the ONS getting early sight of the Harbours Bill — the ONS criteria, because those are a hurdle that we will have to get over. We are in front of you today talking about the Harbours Bill, and we hope very much that the harbour orders will move through quickly and, if not in tandem with the Bill, follow it closely. We would like it to be in tandem. That is only one step, however. The next step has to be applying to the ONS and seeing what it makes of what we put to it. As we know, the process did not work previously. That is the point that I was making.

Mr Harvey: Ryan, do you want to add anything to that?

Mr McCready: I am OK. That was well covered. I have nothing to add, Harry. Thanks.

Mr Harvey: The thing that you mentioned that I picked up as being most important for any other steps was that the orders should run in tandem.

Dr Donaldson: Thank you.

Mr McMurray: Thank you for your presentations. To be honest, a lot of the questions that I had scribbled down on regulation, accountability and privatisation, which we touched on, have been asked. We have covered the need for the Harbours Bill and the orders to progress together and the challenges associated with that. We have also covered communication with the Department about clarifications or amendments. All those points have been touched on, so I will throw it back to you: is there anything that you guys have not told us that you wanted to tell us? You would be more than welcome to do so. I echo the Chair and other members who talked about the economic benefits. We are an island nation, and we therefore have to take stuff in through the ports; that is incumbent on us. We are supportive. If there is anything that needs teased out again or that we have not teased out from you guys, please go for it.

Dr Donaldson: I think that we have covered it. We are very appreciative of all the work that you have put in to date. We know how busy you all are. It is a very busy period, and we know that we are competing with other legislative requirements and things that you have to drive forward. It has been a great pleasure to come here today — I have appeared before the Committee previously — and we are thankful for that. As we mentioned, we are also thankful to the gateways team, the Minister and the Department, because they have a lot of pressures in other business areas that you are well aware of. We are very grateful. It would be remiss of us, however, not to point out what this could achieve for Northern Ireland and for the people whom we serve.

Mr O'Neill: We are in a sweet spot of opportunity. We have our respective master plans. We have clearly defined economic opportunities

that will have wider social and stakeholder benefits. We have the ONS's attention, and we appear to have a commitment from it to look at this expediently when the Bill is presented to it. I would not underestimate that; it does not compare to the previous occasion when we looked at this. It feels as though it is the right moment to capture the opportunities here and to avail ourselves of the opportunity to go through a reclassification process.

Mr McCready: I welcome your scrutiny and comments. We are at your disposal and that of the officials to execute and get this done in order to unlock economic growth beyond just sustaining harbours. We are ready. [Interruption.]

Mr McMurray: You have our attention but maybe not Justin's.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Before I move to Stephen Dunne, I ask Justin McNulty to mute his microphone. He is online. Thank you, Justin. [Inaudible.]

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Justin.

Thank you, folks, for coming in and for your presentation and your work so far. I know that you have been in touch with some of us for quite a while.

I have a couple of points. I will start with the folks at Foyle. A lot of points have been made, covering a lot of ground. I welcome and commend your ambitious strategy for growth. It is certainly impressive. Are you content with the level of direct engagement that you have had with the Department to date?

Mr McCready: Thank you for the question. I will tread carefully. The Department works exceptionally hard and has a busy portfolio. We have had plenty of engagement on the journey to shaping the Bill. Outside that, it is about the limits that are set and it taking two years to get an approval or capital budget cover for an existing asset that we have purchased, on which we had been given assurances in some shape or form, but that not being followed through. Whilst that may not be the Department's fault, it is part of the same system. I put on record the fact that we cannot sustain that. It is unacceptable, irrespective of whether the Bill passes or we are left in our current form. I need to raise that, because we are duty-bound to ensure that we execute our duties and responsibilities.

In the engagement on shaping the Bill, we were advised not to put forward many amendments — there seemed to be reluctance about that — and it was about just getting the Bill through. On closer examination of the ONS feedback, in collaboration with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners in particular, it became clear that there is a need to progress the orders and the Bill in tandem to have a chance of satisfying the ONS. I am not sure whether that clarity has landed with the officials. That is an area that we encourage you to scrutinise, and we ask you to support DFI — the Minister and her team — in doing that.

Mr Dunne: Linked to that, based on your experience, is there any area in which the Bill does not go far enough, bearing in mind the time constraints that exist?

Dr Donaldson: We are satisfied with the Bill.

Mr Dunne: That was more of a question for the representatives from Foyle port. I was going to come to you shortly.

Mr McCready: Briefly, we are satisfied with the Bill as it is. We would like you to progress that. I will not go into any other detail, because we think that, in tandem with the Bill, we can furnish that in the scrutiny of the orders. We have no issues with the Bill at all.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that. Time is of the essence.

Mr McCready: Yes.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that, folks. Well done.

I say to the representatives of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners that I commend you both for your leadership and your team's work. We have been out to see you. About half of the Committee's membership has changed since the previous visit.

That visit was enjoyable. What has been achieved is impressive, as is the potential of the harbour. The D3 cruise terminal project, which is close to my constituency, shows me what can be done even without reclassification, which is a key point.

In your submission, you asked for further clarity on clauses 2, 4 and 6 of the Bill. I just want to be 100% clear that you are now content with the updates that you have received since you made that submission. Have you got that clarity from officials on those three clauses?

Mr O'Neill: Yes.

Mr Dunne: The arrangements in Scotland have bedded in over the more than 10 years since their introduction. Are there any lessons from Scotland for us in this period? As you said, Joe, there is a sweet spot for getting things right. What worked and what did not?

Dr Donaldson: We are not aware of anything that did not work. We know what worked. The ports there were able to raise significant funding that, for example, enabled Aberdeen to expand significantly. I am in contact with the chair of Aberdeen port, and I will be seeing him in the new year. I am not aware of anything that did not work, but we can see what worked. That has given us more confidence in the line that we are going down. The advice that we, as stewards of Belfast harbour, are being asked to give is that this is something that we really need to do for the future. There will otherwise be opportunities that we simply will not be able to avail ourselves of and a much longer timescale for critical projects.

Mr O'Neill: We commissioned Message Matters, which is a Scottish public affairs organisation, to do a piece of work with two aspects to it.

Mr Dunne: Yes, I saw that.

Mr O'Neill: The first was to enable us to fully understand the Scottish process. We believe that, if we can replicate that, we ought to achieve the same outcomes. We wanted to fully understand that and to make sure that we had not left anything behind or not fully appreciated any changes. The second aspect was about seeing whether the policy objectives had been realised. The feedback was that it was a clear, fast, streamlined process with quite a simple legislative change. There was nothing particularly complex. The Scottish ports, and Aberdeen in particular, were comfortable with the outcome, which enabled them to borrow in order to deliver a very significant economic generation project.

Mr Dunne: OK, thank you for that. I commend you. The transformation of Belfast harbour over the past 25 or 30 years, with housing, hotels and regeneration, has been huge. I am sure that it gives hope and ideas to the other three ports in Northern Ireland. Thank you, folks, for your presentation.

Mr McCready: Thank you.

Mr Boggs: Thank you all for coming in and, in particular, for your engagement so far. It has been really useful for me to hear how it works for Belfast harbour in particular. I engaged with colleagues on the matter, albeit when I was in a different role, which has helped me to understand this. As a representative from the north-west, although not in Foyle, I completely understand the importance of Foyle port and harbour and what it does for the wider area.

I am glad that Joe mentioned marine safety, which can be lost amongst all the hype around investment and future plans and all the rest of it. Marine safety is a very important part of the Bill and the orders and what, alongside you, the Department is trying to do. A lot of what I wanted to talk about has already been covered — as Andrew said, that is often the case when a member's turn comes later — so, bearing in mind the time, I will not rehash any of that. I look forward to visiting both facilities in future. Is there anything about regional balance that, from Foyle port's perspective in particular, you have not covered in your previous answers? Do you wish to give us a bit more detail on that?

Mr Luney: I have nothing to add, Paul, other than to say that — hopefully, we have articulated it clearly — the opportunity is there. We are mindful that, for us, it is all about partnership in the north-west, and that stretches into Donegal. It is about what we have but also the strategic assets that are around us. We want to work with other stakeholders in order to deliver for the north-west region. Our perspective is that we are a foundational enabler of that, and we are focused on making it happen.

Mr Boggs: I know that some differences were expressed last week on the wording of potential amendments, but it is refreshing to see people working together and mostly from the same hymn sheet.

Dr Donaldson: It is a huge opportunity for all of us; we see that. Thank you.

Mr McNulty: OK, folks. How are you all? I do not have much to say other than to congratulate you all on your efforts. It is good of you to recognise the work of our Clerk and the team, who have done incredible work behind the scenes, as they always do in that and their other functions. I welcome the new paradigm for ports. Well done, folks.

Dr Donaldson: Thank you.

Mr McCready: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): As a closing comment, I would be interested to hear a quick thought from you all on the issue raised by the representatives of Coleraine harbour, who talked about the terminology used in the Bill and changing the word "ship" to "vessel". I am keen to hear a synopsis of what you think of that.

Mr Luney: We have no issue with the drafting as it is. It is a matter of interpretation for Coleraine that reflects its size and the issues that it is trying to address. We have no issues with the drafting, and we think that anything specific to Coleraine could probably be picked up in a separate harbour order.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK.

Dr Donaldson: I agree.

Mr O'Neill: Our position is exactly the same.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): They also referred to the publication of harbour directions in a port publication. Do you have any comments on that point?

Mr Luney: We have no issues with how it is set out in the Bill. We continue to do what we are doing, so there are no issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): In a sense, their argument was that modern forms of communication should be reflected. I did not understand at the time how costly some of those publications are; I now understand a wee bit better. Is there a particular purpose to that? I know that the Department has a view, but I wanted to gain the insight of your respective ports.

Mr Luney: It is not an issue for us.

Mr O'Neill: Likewise.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK. Thank you very much for coming in and for your thorough presentations. We wish you well. I have no doubt that we will continue to be in contact as the Bill progresses.

Dr Donaldson: Thank you, Chair and Committee.