Grangemouth Oil Refinery Closure: Job Losses
Debate between Lord Wilson of Sedgefield and Lord Offord of Garvel
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I think the noble Lord will understand that I do not agree with that assessment of the situation. Our objective is net zero and what the Secretary of State is doing is thinking about the future. The jobs being lost in Scotland at Grangemouth are because the company has lost over £700 million since it took over the refinery. It invested £1.2 billion and still made a loss. It has got to do with the future, and it is about oil refineries which have international competitors. They need to change and secure long-term investment in sustainable fuels. There is a future for them, and it is one that we are going to back.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, the sad reality is that the Grangemouth oil refinery has come to its end of life after 100 years of service. That is due to the transition from oil and gas to renewables. Of course, the loss of 450 jobs is deeply regrettable, and Ineos should get some credit for working with authorities to try to mitigate that with Project Willow, but I am even more concerned about the 1,000 jobs on the site next to the oil refinery in the Ineos petrochemical plant. It is one of two of its kind in the UK; it is best in class of 40 in Europe, but its profitability is deeply compromised by exorbitant energy prices and carbon taxes which are not imposed on its competitors in the US, China and India. When will the Government realise that their current energy policies are driving the UK industry on the rocky road to ruin?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question, but I think that the Opposition want to airbrush out of the equation the last 14 years, from 2010 to 2024. As far as the petrochemical industry and oil refineries are concerned, under the last Government’s watch two oil refineries closed and a third, Grangemouth, announced its closure. Last month saw the first meeting of the industry with a Minister in 13 years. The trade body for the oil refineries in that sector has welcomed this Government’s approach, especially the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme and a review into the industry’s eligibility for it. We are working with the industry and doing our best to think about what is best for the industry into the future. It is time that the Opposition reflect on what they achieved in the last 14 years.
Social Energy Tariff
Debate between Lord Wilson of Sedgefield and Lord Offord of Garvel
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a valuable point. We will invest £13.2 billion in the warm homes plan over the spending review period, in line with our manifesto commitment. This builds on last year’s initial settlement of £3.4 billion, and we have taken a major step forward in our plans to upgrade up to 5 million homes over this Parliament, cutting energy bills for good and fulfilling our manifesto commitment to deliver the warm homes plan.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, as has been pointed out, we have a social tariff. We had one previously, before 2011, but it was abolished in favour of the warm home discount. I welcome any initiative by the Government to increase that to alleviate any suffering, but any talk of a social tariff would be a sticking plaster over the fundamental problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux: that the cost of our electricity is way too high. Our domestic electricity is three times more expensive than that of the US, and industrial electricity is four times more expensive than that of the US and seven times more than that of China. This is the real problem. Only one-third of electricity prices in domestic bills are wholesale prices; 46% of the total costs are the green levies and subsidies, which are being accentuated by the accelerated and self-inflicted rush to decarbonise the grid. Will the noble Lord go back to his department so that we can come up with a new plan for energy that is affordable for all?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We have plans on the go to make everybody’s energy bills cheaper. We need to move towards having energy that is essentially homegrown, as at the moment it is not. We need to move in that direction if we want to bring down bills, which is the target of this Government.