A report on a storm: Senedd to debate Holyhead Port closure

Wales faced the brunt of Storm Darragh on 6 December 2024, with a red weather warning in place from the early hours of 7 December indicating a risk to life.

Two ‘berthing incidents’ involving Irish Ferries vessels on 6 and 7 December saw both ferry terminals at Holyhead Port close weeks before Christmas. While Terminal 5 reopened on 16 January, Terminal 3 is not expected to reopen until 15 July, a two-week delay from the previous proposed reopening date of 1 July. Stena Line explained this is “Despite great cooperation and the best efforts of all involved in this complex project”.

The Economy Trade and Rural Affairs Committee’s (ETRA) report criticised the Welsh Government’s response. The Welsh Government accepted none of its six recommendations, rejecting three and partially accepting the rest.

On 2 July, the Senedd will debate both the report and the Welsh Government’s response.

A “sluggish” initial response

Closure of the UK’s second busiest ferry port caused significant disruption to international trade flows and the local economy.

Yet the Committee found the initial response “sluggish” with “poor communication”. The Irish Road Haulage Association (IRHA) criticised the Port’s response as “dire”. It noted remediation didn’t begin until after Christmas and said, with over 1,000 trailers building up around Holyhead, it was “a week before we knew [the port] wouldn’t be reopening”.

Holyhead Port explained how the storm delayed work to understand and address the damage.

The Committee also considered the Welsh Government’s response slow. It noted the Road Haulage Association’s (RHA) evidence that Transport Scotland and other Scottish stakeholders engaged first on 11 and 12 December while “….the first contact that I had with the Welsh civil service throughout this whole process was that I got an e-mail on Christmas Eve, giving me an update on the port.”

It was clear that the Welsh Government had engaged with other stakeholders, like the Irish Government, throughout. And a Welsh Government official stressed their focus was on communications with drivers approaching or at the port, to manage traffic flow. However, the RHA felt it was important that freight bodies are able to disseminate information on behalf of Government.

Despite establishing a “multistakeholder taskforce” in response to the closure, the Welsh Government rejected a recommendation to conduct a “lessons learned” review. Noting the work of the taskforce, it stressed that the “ports in Wales handling Irish Sea traffic are commercial entities either privately owned and operated or Trust Ports”.

The timeline below shows key developments since December:

Witnesses unsure who was in charge

Stakeholders giving evidence were unable to say which Cabinet Secretary was in charge. While the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, Ken Skates MS, led the response, the Welsh Government website makes clear that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning, Rebecca Evans MS, has responsibility for “ports policy, including freeports”.

In evidence, she subsequently explained that she is responsible for “the contribution that ports and aviation make in relation to economic growth and stability”, while the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales “has responsibilities in relation to transport matters more generally”.

The British Ports Association said it didn’t have a problem communicating with both Ministers, and had “non-siloed” access to officials. However, the Committee recommended the response to future large scale incidents should have “a Ministerial lead who will oversee and be held accountable for management of the response”.

Despite being good practice – for example the UK Government’s Amber Book on crisis management stresses that “having clear leadership from the onset of a crisis is a prerequisite for an effective response” – the Welsh Government rejected this recommendation.

Trade diversions

The Committee noted that 104 sailings a week were lost as a result of the closure and traffic had to be redeployed to other routes. Dublin, Northern Ireland and Rosslare benefitted from these diversions, absorbing 45%, 30% and 25% of diverted traffic, respectively.  

The Cabinet Secretary for Economy acknowledged that, while the data needs “unpicking”, the value of trade though Holyhead in December 2024 was almost half a billion pounds less than the year before (-£490.4m).  

And while logistics expert, Professor Andrew Potter, didn’t foresee a long-term reduction in trade, the Committee was concerned that the closure “may have further exacerbated” post-Brexit diversions away from Welsh ports to ports in Scotland and England. It concluded that the Welsh Government “must use all available levers to ensure Holyhead remains an attractive choice”.

Local economy hit by closure

The Isle of Anglesey County Council said “the importance of the Port of Holyhead to the local and Welsh economy cannot be underestimated”. Cybi Business Forum noted that passenger numbers are key for local businesses, as “the footfall through the town and the spend through the town is what keeps businesses going”.

The Council highlighted that footfall in Holyhead town centre during the closure was down 37% compared to the previous year. Some local businesses reported trade was down by 90% during the closure, with the transport, retail, storage and accommodation sectors most affected.

The Committee was relieved to hear that the impact of the port’s closure had not led to the anticipated level of job losses in affected local businesses. However, it was concerned about the lack of understanding of impacts on the local workforce. The Welsh Government acknowledged gaps in the data on this, and will consider how to address this with local partners.

The Committee also called for the Welsh Government to urgently make a decision on what support it would provide to affected businesses. The Welsh Government’s response says it has “responded positively” to business support proposals from the local authority, and will work with it to “develop and agree funding so that these actions can be implemented as swiftly as possible”.

The taskforce and beyond

Following a Welsh Government meeting with the Irish Government, the taskforce met for the first time on 27 March 2025. The terms of reference indicate broad membership and a focus on: contingency planning; current and live projects; and future developments.

The Committee outlined a number of areas it felt the taskforce should consider, including “supporting the long-term viability of the Port and avoiding future trade diversion”.

The Welsh Government partially accepted this, noting again that the port is privately owned and that “the long-term viability of the Port is a matter for Stena Line.” Despite this, the terms of reference state:

The taskforce will ascertain what Holyhead and other Welsh ports need from all stakeholders over the longer term, to not just survive, but to thrive.

The Welsh Government’s National Transport Delivery Plan promised a Welsh Ports and Maritime Strategy and Wales National Freight and Logistics Plan by 2024. Previous evidence to the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee indicated the Ports Strategy had been deprioritised in favour of the freight strategy, yet ETRA noted that neither has materialised. The Cabinet Secretaries explained how these would now integrate with the taskforce work.

Noting disappointment among some stakeholders at this delay, the Committee recommended this should be “expedited” once the taskforce has completed its work.

While the port is now expected to fully reopen on 15 July 2025, the incident has raised issues that will take longer to resolve. The taskforce’s conclusions, and their implementation, will be critical to the future resilience of the landbridge connecting the island of Ireland to Great Britain and beyond.

Article by Andrew Minnis, Sara Moran and Gareth Thomas, Senedd Research, Welsh Parliament