Oil Refining Sector

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this highly important debate, and I draw everyone’s attention to my membership of Unite the union.

Since coming to this place, I have repeatedly raised the issue of the Grangemouth oil refinery closing, with 435 jobs lost on site and 2,822 lost in the wider supply chain. Closure means an end to a century of oil refining on the site and to a generational employer for Grangemouth people. Nearly every family in the town has had someone, or knows someone, who worked at the site. There is no doubt about it: local businesses will feel the pain of the closure. The hairdressers, barbers, small independent retailers, hotels, restaurants, pubs and garages are the very businesses that make up the heartbeat of the local community and the town’s economy. They are all negatively impacted.

The closure is more than just a local constituency issue. It is Scotland’s biggest industrial issue in four decades, it is safe to say, since the end of the coalmining industry. To put the matter into the national context, the Grangemouth refinery was worth more than £400 million per annum to the Scottish economy, according to both Scottish Enterprise and PwC. While conflict rages on in Europe, British people have been susceptible to the resulting price shocks and disrupted supply chains that have impacted the oil industry in Europe. At this perilous time, with refining ending at Grangemouth, Scotland is now in the ridiculous position of importing our own oil. The energy-abundant nation of Scotland is reliant on global logistics and outside influences for our oil products. It is incredible that we have lost our self-sufficiency.

Why has this happened? Why did the refinery close? I will say something different from what right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned so far. Let me be clear: the idea that the Grangemouth refinery closed as part of trying to achieve net zero, or as part of some woke green agenda or an environmental campaign, is utter nonsense. The real reason—the heart of the matter—is Petroineos. It is made up of private capital, Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos and a foreign Government in the form of Chinese state-backed PetroChina. It controlled the Grangemouth refinery, a key piece of Scottish and British national infrastructure, and closure was a commercial decision.

Closure happened because it was more profitable for a private company to make hundreds of workers redundant and operate Grangemouth as an import terminal. It was international capital concerned with the corporate greed of a billionaire owner, with shareholder dividends their priority. That is the ruthless nature of how international capital works. Ratcliffe has massively weakened Scotland’s national economy and jeopardised our country’s energy security for his own needs. I am disgusted by Governments allowing that to happen, and by the pandering to Ratcliffe in spending billions of pounds to help with the regeneration around Old Trafford and hundreds of millions of pounds to provide a loan guarantee for his plant in Belgium.

I make absolutely no apologies for being ideological. As the country sacrificed state ownership of vital infrastructure, we lost control of our own refinery. We have seen job losses, an exodus of skills and talent, local shops closing and all the social consequences that follow deindustrialisation. That is what has happened to former industrial towns the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. For goodness’ sake! The country needs a different industrial direction, to bring an end to being at the mercy of private capital and foreign Government influence.

There is a clear, coherent case for Government ownership. It is in the public interest. In questions to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and to the Treasury, I have asked what ownership stake the UK Government are willing to take in future industries at Grangemouth. I put the same question to the Minister this afternoon.

Just as I make no apologies for being ideological in my opinion of public ownership, I make no apologies for criticising both the UK and Scottish Governments. We know that oil will be part of the energy mix for decades to come, so it is time for both of Scotland’s Governments to be bold. The existing infrastructure of the Grangemouth refinery is largely still in place, and there should be a conversion to sustainable aviation fuel there.

We have signed up to highly ambitious mandates, so let us try to meet those targets. Successful conversion of refineries is there for everyone to see—at La Mède in France, Eni’s Venice refinery in Italy and Phillips’s Rodeo refinery in the US. I say this to the Minister today: what happens at Grangemouth will go a long way in deciding how we shape our future economy, who controls it and who this Government actually serve and work for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, he is more than welcome.

What the Government did not realise at the time is that when they got rid of a coalmine—each coalmine had a football team, a rugby team, a cricket team, a community club, a miners’ welfare, a brass band and a bandstand in the local welfare grounds—it destroyed whole communities, and those communities will never come back. They will never be the same again.

Fast forward 40-odd years and we have a Labour Chancellor and Government, who we would think would protect these industries. Look at the hypocrisy in that part of the world. We have Drax power station, which used to burn coal from a nearby coalmine, just a few miles down the road. I think that was shut about 10 years ago. I remember the Energy Secretary at the time was campaigning to keep it open. How things have changed! The power station now burns wooden pellets from trees chopped down in North America—in Canada. They chop the trees down and put them on diesel-guzzling cargo ships. They then chop them up into pellets using diesel-guzzling machinery on the ship. They then come to this country, are put on diesel-guzzling cargo trains and transported to Drax power station, where we set fire to them. And we say that is renewable energy. That costs the British taxpayer about £1 million a day in subsidies. I think it has cost about £10 billion so far since we have been using wooden pellets there.

Just a few miles down the road we have the perfectly good Lindsey oil refinery, which appears to be doomed, with 400 jobs at risk and a thousand more in the supply chain. If the Government are going to use taxpayers’ money to subsidise industry or keep places open, they should look at the oil refineries, because once they have gone, they are never coming back, and we have lost the community and that sense of pride.

There are not many Government Members here, to be honest—I cannot see many—although I will thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for his passionate contribution. I did not catch most of it because I am a little bit deaf; I will sit a bit closer next time.

[Brian Leishman]

I don’t know what you mean. [Laughter.]

[Lee Anderson]

We would expect this Labour Government to do a little bit more for these communities. Back in the ’80s, Labour was attacking the Tories for doing exactly the same thing: closing the vital industries. As I say, once the industry has gone, it is gone, and the skills that one generation passes on to another are gone as well. It is all well and good saying to somebody, “It’s okay, you can make windmills or solar panels,” or, “We’ll retrain you in green energy,” but they do not want that. This lot do not understand that there are still men and women in this country who want to get up in the morning and go do a proper day’s graft. They want to set the alarm clock at 10 o’clock at night, get up at half four or five o’clock in the morning and go do a proper day’s graft where they get their hands dirty. It is dangerous, dirty work, and they contribute towards their society by earning decent wages—good wages—and it keeps their communities going. If we lose that, we lose it for ever.

In the last year alone, we have lost a third of refineries, following the closure of Grangemouth, and now Lindsey is obviously doomed as well. That leaves just four refineries in the country. Why is Lindsey closing? Because it is being hit again and again with costs just to stay compliant with the UK emissions trading scheme. We know that to be compliant, refineries are required to submit verified emission reports to the UK ETS authority and to surrender sufficient allowances to meet the total emissions generated. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) said, those costs account for the highest expenditure in a refinery’s operating budget. Just let that sink in: the biggest cost to a refinery is one that has been inflicted upon it for the sole purpose of meeting net zero. In other words, it has been inflicted by this Government and the Energy Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

We are very clear that energy companies have strict obligations to follow. We are working with Ofgem to ensure that it adheres to those obligations, and we are doing the job of reviewing Ofgem to ensure that it is a proper consumer champion, with the mandate and powers to work on behalf of consumers and reform this market so that it works in the interests of the hon. Lady’s constituents.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

More than 100 INEOS chemical employees are to lose their jobs at Grangemouth because the refinery has closed. The £200 million commitment to Project Willow does not help them in the here and now, and it is frankly an insult to the workers who are about to lose their livelihoods to talk about training opportunities at Forth Valley college that are not being afforded to them. What have the Government actually done and what will they do for those workers who do not have the same redundancy or training package as the refinery workers?

[Michael Shanks]

We are looking in the round at how we can deliver jobs and opportunities on the Grangemouth site. The National Wealth Fund made an unprecedented commitment of £200 million, and I have been meeting companies that are potentially interested in developing projects, to make sure we get them over the line. We have delivered on the training guarantee and delivered support beyond that provided by the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal. We are doing everything we can to support the workforce there, and we will continue to do so.

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his time earlier today. This will be a distressing issue in his constituency, so it was good to have the chance to speak to him about it. He is right. With this decision having been made last night in the courts and made public this morning, we have not had much time to fully work through the timeline of what will happen in the coming weeks. The Government are funding the official receiver to continue the safe operations of the refinery. The first priority will be to make sure that safe operations proceed, but then we will see whether a buyer is interested in the site. We will then move as quickly as possible, if that is not possible, to see what alternatives there are for the site.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman assurances on exact timescales at this point, but he can be assured that the Government are determined to do the right thing, and we will do whatever we can to get either a buyer or a sustainable future for the site. I reiterate to the House that this is a difficult set of circumstances with little time to prepare, and the refinery has been loss-making since it was taken over from Total some years ago. It is a difficult position, but we will do everything we can.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I am glad that the root cause of the problems that we face has been identified. We have touched on it, but this is what happens when private capital is in charge of such a key piece of infrastructure. We saw that play out at the Grangemouth refinery in my constituency, and it is good to hear my hon. Friend the Minister in agreement with me in condemnation of the owners of the Prax Lindsey refinery. It gives me hope that the Government will learn important lessons and assume at least some form of ownership in the future industries that will be come at Grangemouth and potentially at other sites. Can we get an update on that, please?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the work that the Government are doing following our £200 million commitment to support the future of Grangemouth through the national wealth fund. There have been 84 serious and credible inquiries about projects there, and I have been meeting those involved in some of those projects to discuss what more the Government can do to ensure that they are delivered. We will say more about that in due course, but we are working collaboratively with the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise to bring the projects forward. As we have said since day one, we are determined to deliver a sustainable, viable industrial future for Grangemouth. The difference between Grangemouth and the Prax Lindsey refinery—I want to separate the two slightly—is that while we may have issues with the owners of various sites across the country, an 18-month redundancy package was put in place at Grangemouth and that is not the case in this instance, which is why the Government are particularly calling on the owners of this refinery to do the right thing for the workers there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

We know how important carbon capture, usage and storage is—the Climate Change Committee said there is no route to net zero that does not include carbon capture—with, of course, up to 50,000 good, well-paid jobs across the UK. The Government have already shown their commitment to carbon capture with a £21.7 billion investment. I am afraid that the hon. Member will have to wait until the spending review for the final decisions, but I hope he agrees that we are putting in place ambitious, substantial carbon capture plans that will drive growth across the country.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Acorn would go some way to reindustrialising areas of Scotland, which is much needed. I welcomed the Government committing £200 million from the national wealth fund for future industry at Grangemouth in my constituency. To avoid us again being in the precarious position of having private-capital or foreign-Government ownership dictate our future energy industries, do the Government plan to take any ownership stake in the industries that will be coming at Grangemouth?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we lost thousands of jobs under the previous Government, whether in ceramics, chemicals or steel. The previous Government saw foundational industries through the rear-view mirror, but we know that these industries will forge our future. That is why we are rushing to get to clean energy by 2030 so that we can bring prices down, why we are supporting our industries through the supercharger, and why through the industrial strategy we are looking to provide more support, not less, to those crucial foundational industries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

As the hon. Lady will know, we inherited this situation from the last Government, but we set aside £200 million to build the future in Grangemouth and we are working closely with the Scottish Government on precisely that, in a Government-to-Government collaboration. As for the hon. Lady’s wider question about industrial energy prices, we should obviously look at what different sectors are saying.

A lot of nonsense is being talked about steel. UK Steel has said categorically that the difference between our prices and those of continental Europe is a result of our reliance on natural gas power generation. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say “Rubbish”, but that is what UK Steel has said, and that is why our clean power mission is right for families and right for business.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Today marks the end of more than a century of refining at Grangemouth. Scotland is once again a victim of industrial vandalism and devastation—and I do not want anyone in this Chamber to dare mention a “just transition”, because we all know that the Conservatives when they were in power, and the Scottish National party currently in Holyrood, have done nothing to avert this catastrophic decision. I put it to the Secretary of State that during the general election campaign the Labour leadership said that they would step in and save the jobs at the refinery. What has changed, and why have we not done the sensible thing for Scotland’s energy security?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is talking about a very important issue, and Grangemouth has a very important role in Scotland. What I will say to him and to others is that as soon as this Government saw the situation that they had inherited, they put money in to help the workers, and they have made that huge investment commitment of £200 million, working hand in hand with the Scottish Government, so that we can build the future in Grangemouth. We are absolutely committed to building the future for Grangemouth communities, and we look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other Members on both sides of the House to do that.

North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. My thanks go to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this vital debate.

The fate of the skilled workers of the oil and gas sector hangs in the balance, and nowhere more so than in Grangemouth in my constituency. Once known as Scotland’s boomtown, Grangemouth has refined oil for more than a century. The refinery has been a generational employer for local families—a destination that has provided transformational opportunity for local people. It has provided world-class training and good pay, leading to improving living standards and community prosperity.

However, the owners, INEOS and PetroChina—the petrochemical wing of the Chinese state—have decided to call time on Grangemouth and Scotland’s refining capability. The first set of redundancies start in just a week’s time, and the thousands of job losses that will happen show the precarious position workers are in when private capital and a foreign Government own such a vital piece of infrastructure.

Regarding the refinery, I do not want to hear anyone insult the intelligence of the Grangemouth workers and utter the phrase “just transition”. Jobs will be lost, and the new energy industries are just not ready. That is the very definition of an unjust transition. I also do not want the Government to say that the £100 million growth deal for Falkirk and Grangemouth is the solution—not when the refinery is worth over £400 million a year to the Scottish economy. The £200 million from the National Wealth Fund that the Prime Minister announced at the Scottish Labour conference to entice new industries is welcome, but that money is conditional on private capital investment coming in with no planned Government ownership, meaning that workers, communities and Scotland will be in mercy of private capital and foreign ownership—again. Why are the Government not learning any lessons?

The refinery’s influence goes beyond the town. Grangemouth oil keeps Scotland’s 5.5 million people moving. I do not need to ask the Minister whether the refinery closing will compromise Scotland’s fuel security, because it obviously will. Scotland will now order oil in from mainland Europe—it will arrive, go through a vastly reduced quality control process, and then be distributed from the new import terminal at Grangemouth. Scotland will be dependent on European transportation logistics; an energy-rich nation will lose self-reliance—a farcical and dangerous set of circumstances.

Grangemouth only wants consistency, and that means the Government treating Scotland’s only oil refinery in the same manner as Scunthorpe steel. I put it to the Minister that the recall of Parliament showed that when there is a political will, things can get done. A Government can intervene and save jobs, a community and an industry. The argument that Grangemouth should be treated differently to Scunthorpe is total nonsense. The similarities are strikingly clear.

The Government could, and should, do the same for Grangemouth. It is the right thing to do for workers, communities and a nation’s security. That should be enough reason to intervene, but if it is not, I suggest that the Government have a look at the political implications: Scotland is watching, and our party will get a rude awakening at the ballot box in May 2026 over this issue. The Government should step in, save the jobs and extend the life of the Grangemouth refinery until the new energy industries are ready.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

There is to be a much reduced testing process for oil at the import terminal at Grangemouth. Is the Secretary of State concerned that, if imported oil does not pass these reduced tests, it cannot be used, leading to Scotland suffering a fuel shortage?

[Michael Shanks]

Throughout the seven months that we have been in government, we have been doing everything we can to work with the operators of the Grangemouth refinery. Of course we were disappointed by its closure. We have carried out a number of pieces of work on fuel security. We are not concerned about that at this point, but, across the whole country, we keep constantly it under review.

Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I have said, we are going through the robust processes to try to make absolutely sure that our national security is not compromised by investment from overseas, and we will continue to do that.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

The Grangemouth refinery is a vital piece of Scottish infrastructure, and its economic contribution to the Scottish economy is worth more than £400 million every year. The Grangemouth refinery is also a joint venture between PetroChina, owned by the Chinese state, and INEOS, a multinational conglomerate. Together, they are Petroineos. The refinery is due to close, with thousands of jobs being lost, an unjust transition and Scotland having to rely on importing oil, all at a time of great global volatility. Why are this Government allowing a foreign Government and private capital dictate Scotland’s industrial capacity, its ability to produce oil and, overall, our national security?

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Member has raised community energy on a number of occasions in this place, and I know she is a champion of it. She is right to highlight the examples of where community energy can make a huge difference. One of the key areas we want to drive forward is the local power plan, which will be delivered by Great British Energy. Unfortunately, her party did not in the end support the creation of Great British Energy, but I hope they will change that position and see the huge advantages of investing through Great British Energy in schemes like the one she mentioned, but also of helping to build capacity in community groups so that they are capable of driving those projects forward.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I declare the interest that I am a Unite the union member.

Communities all across Scotland rely on the Grangemouth refinery for their energy. As closure looms, Unite has given the Government a plan that will save jobs, help hit sustainable aviation fuel targets and build new green industries for the future. It is not too late to save those jobs and achieve the just transition that my community desperately needs. Will the Secretary of State agree that the plan has great potential and agree to meet Unite to see what the Government can do to achieve a truly just transition for the refinery workers and keep Scotland’s only refinery working?

[Michael Shanks]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have met Unite on a number of occasions over the past few months since Petroineos made the disappointing decision to follow through on its closure plans for the Grangemouth refinery. It is important that we look at every possible option, and we have done.

It is also important that the Government are clear that we want to see a long-term sustainable future for the refinery site. That is why we invested in Project Willow, which at the moment is coming up with credible investable propositions for the site. We want to protect the workers and do whatever we can to ensure a just transition at Grangemouth and for industry right across the country, but those options need to be long-term and sustainable so that we do not drive workers back into this process again a few years down the line. We are committed to ensuring that we invest in long-term sustainable propositions for the site, and of course we will meet anyone and discuss any propositions to help make that happen.

Great British Energy Bill

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I rise to support amendment 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), to require a statement of strategic priorities on the facilitation of community-based clean energy schemes.

Energy supply is the second largest contributor to UK domestic greenhouse gas emissions, making up 20% of carbon emissions in 2022. Community energy should play a key role in reducing this and in helping the UK to meet its net zero targets. Community energy projects have positive impacts on equality, social cohesion and economic opportunity. We must therefore encourage local communities to take ownership of energy production. This way, we can ensure that decisions are taken in the best interests of local communities, and in collaboration with them, to better meet their needs.

The local economic benefits are clear, with community energy businesses in 2021 raising £21.5 million of investment for new projects and spending £15 million of community energy income to boost local economies. Community energy schemes currently produce just 0.5% of UK electricity but, according to studies by the Environmental Audit Committee, this could grow twentyfold over the next 10 years.

My constituency has seen the benefit of community energy schemes, with Avalon Community Energy in Street and South Somerset Community Energy in Wincanton providing services to the local area. Avalon is currently focused on delivering the clean energy project as one of the projects that make up the Glastonbury town deal. The £2 million project will develop renewable energy and carbon saving for the community. It is currently estimated that the project will save around 1,000 tonnes of carbon per year, and there will be an annual revenue surplus of over £100,000, some of which will be used for ongoing local community benefits. South Somerset Community Energy has installed three solar panels on the roof of Stanchester academy in Stoke-sub-Hamdon. Those solar panels produce around 100,000 kWh of energy per year, at least 70% of which is used by the academy.

The Liberal Democrats want to support the expansion of community energy schemes by requiring large energy suppliers to work with community schemes to sell the power they generate to local customers. If the Government want to drive a clean energy revolution, community energy has to be part of that. Community energy schemes have the potential to power 2.2 million homes, to save 2.5 million tonnes of CO₂ a year and to create over 30,000 jobs. The Government have sadly neglected community energy provisions in the original Bill, as many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues have and will outline. That is a major missed opportunity.

Engagement and consultation with local communities is crucial if GB Energy is to be a success. GB Energy should also provide communities who host renewable energy infrastructure with the ability to realise community benefits from that. I have spoken on this point at length over recent weeks, because it is crucial if we are to boost the much-needed roll-out of renewable energy, particularly in areas like Glastonbury and Somerton. Communities must be part of the process. They have a critical role to play and a voice that must be heard. Through engagement, we can deliver clean energy, increase social cohesion and allow communities to invest in their place.

For the reasons I have laid out, I will be supporting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, and I urge the House to do the same.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Before I make my contribution, I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for failing to mention during the Employment Rights Bill debate last week the financial donations made to me by Unite the Union of £7,500, and by the Communication Workers Union of £3,500. I appreciate that being a first time MP is no excuse, and I extend my sincere apologies to you and to the House. On that note, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where it also says that I am a member of Unite the Union, which I will refer to later in my remarks.

There is so much to like in the GB Energy Bill: a publicly owned clean energy company, the creation of skilled jobs, reindustrialising communities and cutting household bills. It is a transformative and bold idea, which is to be applauded and to be proud of. Since coming to this place, I have heard it said—indeed, I have said—that a nation’s energy security is linked to its national security. GB Energy should eventually help with both those things and create thousands of skilled jobs. That is excellent.

However, what about the jobs of the Grangemouth refinery workers, the same workers who are right now crucial to Scotland’s energy security, and therefore to Scotland’s national security? Those workers are nearing the end of their 45-day consultation process, during which the focus should be on how jobs can be saved and maintained for those workers. Recent comments include, “These workers will be okay and it will all be fine because they’ll get employment elsewhere.” If the workers have to leave, that will not help my community. Stopping refining does not help Scotland’s fuel or national security.

There can be no doubt that my constituency will be much weaker for losing the refinery—job losses will run into the thousands. There can also be no doubt that Scotland will be weaker for losing the refinery. After all, Scottish Enterprise has reported that the economic contribution of the Grangemouth refinery is north of £400 million.

Mark my words, stopping refining at Grangemouth and closing Finnart will have monumental consequences for all of Scotland. It will not take long for the pumps on forecourts all over the country to be impacted, and so too the public. Although this is not a problem of this Government’s making—the previous UK Tory Government and the current SNP Scottish Government have long since turned their backs on the refinery, and it was previous UK Ministers and Scottish Cabinet Secretaries who got us into this mess—make no mistake, it is our mess to clean up now.