Debate contribution: Harbours Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Justin McNulty on 23 June 2026.

MLA: Mr Justin McNulty
Party at the time: Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date: 23 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Harbours Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5636832

Text

I rise to speak on the Harbours Bill as the SDLP member of the Committee for Infrastructure. The four trust ports in the North play a vital role in freight and cargo handling, commodity imports and passenger and cruise travel. Those services are vital for our island economy. Ports ensure that consumers have the goods that they need, that construction materials are available and that we have sufficient import of fuels. Ports also play an important role in our tourism sector by facilitating visitors coming into this part of our islands. Whilst operating in a commercially viable manner, any profits that trust ports make are reinvested into the ports for the development of their business activities and are also used for the benefit of stakeholders. This legislation will not change that model. The trust port model has stood the test of time and has worked well for the North. We can see the economic and social benefits in the local communities around the ports. In 2025, the DFI completed a review of the trust ports in the North to explore how the Department's policy on trust ports could be updated. The consultation recognised that our ports operate in a competitive environment and that it is therefore important that they can compete effectively with ports in the rest of Ireland and in the UK. The consultation exercise showed that there was significant support for modernising policy on our trust ports, particularly around the Office of National Statistics' reclassification. Trust ports are currently classified by the ONS as a public corporation for accounting purposes only. However, that affects their ability to borrow, as any debt taken on would essentially have an impact on the Department for Infrastructure's balance sheet. The ONS classification was changed to its current status in April 2005 with no consultation or scrutiny role for the Assembly to challenge that decision. The reclassification of NI trust ports from private non-financial corporations to public non-financial corporations is a technical fix to that accounting classification. The Harbours Bill allows for that by removing indicators of control, including the power to compel the sale of a port and the power to direct. The power to direct has never been used.
Of course.
Absolutely. The Minister and the Department can never relinquish the reins of proper scrutiny. The reclassification by ONS will mean that all trust ports can borrow, which will allow them the commercial flexibility to invest more in their infrastructure. That will result in improved port facilities and the ability to grow trade in each port. A change of accounting classification by ONS would also bring us in line with the Scottish trust ports and several trust ports in England and Wales that have already been reclassified. Importantly, the trust port model will not change. The model has worked well for us in the North and its protection should be welcomed. We look forward to the legislation coming to Committee to allow us to do a deep dive into each of the clauses. We support the Bill at Second Stage.

509 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.02	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.02	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.02	No
Controversy escalation	0.02	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.89	Yes
Overall judgement	0.02	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	1.00
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.00

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.94
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.03
Another identity-related subject	0.03
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:08 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification