Seaborne Freight Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Transport
Monday 11th February 2019

(5 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling Portrait Chris Grayling
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not think that Opposition Members are listening at all to what I have said. The agreements were all in place and ready to be signed, but the reality is that, at this moment, Arklow took a step back and did not want to continue. We had commitment now, a month ago and at Christmas time that Arklow was backing this proposal, but to be on the safe side—to be sure—we set up a contractual structure that meant that the taxpayer had no exposure unless the service was delivered. That was the right thing to do.

Wayne David Portrait Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Last month, the Secretary of State said to this House:

“We contracted with Seaborne Freight because the service it proposes represents a sensible contingency”—[Official Report, 8 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 190.]

Given what we now know and with the benefit of hindsight, will the Secretary of State have the humility to come to the Dispatch Box and say sorry?

Chris Grayling Portrait Chris Grayling
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It was a sensible contingency. If we require that capacity now, we will have to use longer routes through the North sea, when it would be better to go from Ramsgate to Ostend. We have the resources, facilities and capacity available to deal with what we have identified as the needs of organisations such as the NHS.