PROCEEDINGS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE (PORT OF BELFAST)

THURSDAY 22 APRIL 1999 AT 10.15 AM

IN ROOM 135, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

Present:Mr A Maginness (Joint Chairperson)

Mr R Beggs

Mr P Bradley (representing Mr E McGrady)

Mr G Campbell

Mr B Hutchinson

Mr M Murphy (representing Mr A Maskey)

Ms J Morrice

Mr M Morrow

Mr S Neeson

Mr D O'Connor

Mr P Roche

Mr J Tierney

Mr D Watson

Mr S Wilson (Joint Chairperson)

In attendance:Mr G MartinMrs K McFerran

Dr S DonnellyMs V SurplusMr D Harkin

Mr A Maginness took the Chair

1.Minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed.

2.Matters arising

3.Presentation from University of Ulster independent experts on their appraisal of the options for the Port of Belfast.

Panel members:

Following the presentation there was a question-and-answer session, summarised as follows:

i. Assembly Member Roche expressed concern with the methodology that the experts had used for their model, especially in relation to its parameters, weighting system, scoring mechanism and the assumption that public ownership of the Port was necessarily the best means of protecting the public interest.

Dr Schmidt explained the use of the generic model by pointing out that there was no such thing as a typical port and that each one comprised a complex system of components. He advised that the weighting system had been determined with the public interest in mind.

Mr Smyth emphasised that the research team had followed strictly the Treasury model, as set out in the Green Book, for the evaluation of non-monetary factors. He accepted that value judgements had had to be made but that these had been informed by the team's considerable experience in this field.

ii. Assembly Member Wilson queried the relevance of the golden share to the Public-Private Corporation option (PPC). Mr Bunce explained that this was intended as an ultimate safeguard against any aggressive take-over bid.

iii. Assembly Member Beggs sought and received assurances from the experts in relation to the accuracy of the data in the port case studies in their appraisal. Mr Bunce confirmed that all available information had been included in the study.

iv. Assembly Member Beggs asked if any indication could be given as to the potential income stream from the PPC option, but the panel did not have sufficient financial data to provide a detailed answer at present.

v. Assembly Member Wilson asked if a value could be put on Belfast port, given the restrictions that the PPC option would entail. Mr Bunce said that as no valuation had been carried out it was not possible to give an accurate answer.

vi. Assembly Member O'Connor sought assurance that Belfast Port operating as a PPC could not disadvantage Northern Ireland's other ports by accessing European funds. Mr Smyth emphasised that the merits of any funding bids had to be measured by the benefits that they could bring to the local economy, and that the Government would decide the priority of cases to take forward.

vii. Assembly Member Neeson asked what advantages the PPC option had over the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' proposal. Dr Schmidt replied that, with the PPC option, the Port's assets would remain in the public domain, and that responsibility for rules on health and safety would rest with the Government.

viii. The Joint Chairperson asked how the PPC and PPP models compared in terms of the Harbour's borrowing potential. Mr Smyth acknowledged that the PPP model would provide access to equity finance.

ix. Assembly Member Campbell made the distinction between the PPC and PPP options as regards their capacity to raise capital, and asked the panel how they would address the roads infrastructure capital requirement. Mr Smyth advised that EU Structural Funds should be accessed for such capital funding, especially since under the NI Single Programme 2000-06 it was accepted that the roads infrastructure required substantial upgrading and development.

x. Assembly Member Beggs sought and received assurance that the PPC option would protect the other ports in Northern Ireland and would not create unfair competition.

The Joint Chairperson thanked the panel for their presentation, and they left the meeting.

Assembly Member Wilson emphasised that the delivery of the roads programme was crucial and that this issue must be addressed by any preferred option. He was also uncertain about the role of the golden share under the PPC scheme. The Clerk agreed to take forward both concerns with the UUJ experts.

4.AOB:

Assembly Member Bradley proposed that the user groups who represent the other Northern Ireland ports be given the opportunity to give oral evidence.

Agreed:

MR S WILSON