Oil Refining Sector

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Of course, we have been here before with industry in this country. I remember what happened to the coal mines back in the 1980s. I worked in the coal mines in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and the whole industry was decimated by the Conservative Government at the time—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

You were a Conservative once!

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order.

[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.

[Seamus Logan]

I hear what the hon. Member says about oil refineries, and I share many of his concerns—you will have heard what I said—but I have also heard him and his party colleagues talking about “net stupid zero”. Does he actually believe that we should cancel all the wind farm projects and all the grid infrastructure rebuilding? Is that what he firmly believes we should do?

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that when they say “you” they are speaking to me.

[Lee Anderson]

I have heard colleagues talk about “net stupid zero” in the past. We think the targets should be scrapped; we are not against trying different sources of energy to fuel our nation. We are saying we should have a sensible transition. China has got it right: it is burning coal. China is opening coal mines and using coal-fired power stations. The irony is that China makes solar panels and windmills using electricity generated by coal-fired power stations, and then flogs them to us. We think, “That’s great! Look at this: we’re reducing the Earth’s carbon.” We are not reducing the Earth’s carbon; we are just exporting it to other countries. It is absolute madness and hypocrisy. When we are committing this nonsense, it costs our Treasury billions of pounds in receipts a year. It is absolute nonsense. When some of my hon. Friends say “net stupid zero”, that is what they are referring to. And it is stupid—it is absolute madness.

I am going to finish now, because I have had an extra minute and I know other people want to speak. I have been one of those working men who gets up in the morning at 5 o’clock and goes and does a dirty, horrible, dangerous job. I know what it is like to come home, after doing a horrible shift on a horrible job. I know what the people in these communities feel like. They do it because they love their family and their community, so they go and do some jobs that nobody in this room would ever do. This Labour Government should remind themselves what the Labour party was founded on: helping the working man in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important debate, and all the Members who have spoken for their contributions. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace—we have done a lot of work on sustainable aviation fuel—and that I met representatives of Exolum, the International Air Transport Association, LanzaJet and the Tank Storage Association in preparation for this debate.

At times of great upheaval and change, it is tempting to look to political leaders, artists or other major cultural figures to get a sense of where the world is headed. That is certainly a popular approach among historians, but I think it misses something: the often pivotal role of engineers—and I say that not just because I am one myself, or was. It is not necessary to subscribe to an entirely materialistic view of history to recognise that engineers, no matter who they work for or where they work, are often at the vanguard of the kind of technological change that enables our wider political or social ambitions to be achieved. That was true at the cusp of the industrial revolution; it was true when the white heat of technology exploded the middle class in the ’50s; and it is true now, perhaps more than ever, as we embark on the mission to undo the damage to our environment that previous technological shifts have wrought. We must secure our energy supply so that we can withstand an ever more uncertain future, and transform our late-industrial malaise into a green, prosperous and abundant economy through a truly just transition.

Data from the oil and gas industry shows that it directly supports around 26,000 jobs across the UK and indirectly supports 95,000 more. These are largely jobs in offshore drilling, rigging, catering, scaffolding, onshore fabrication yards, anchor manufacturing and vessel maintenance, and there are more. It is also estimated that there are another 84,000 jobs among the hospitality workers, taxi drivers and others who serve industrial communities and are supported by them in turn. We have seen before what happens when there is a major industrial shift and we fail to support jobs and the communities they help to keep alive—from the closure of the pits to the ongoing crisis of British Steel. We must learn lessons from past deindustrialisations to avoid similar damage to communities today.

All policy makers should dedicate themselves to avoiding the traumatic manifestations of necessary—or, at the very least, foreseeable—moments. It is vital that any job losses in this sector are mitigated by reskilling and retraining with new green investment. However, right now in 2025, we are losing our traditional refining, chemicals and existing biofuel production capability and home-grown expertise. Complexity, departmental misalignment and a lack of pragmatism in public policy are holding back the existing and future fuels sector. The Government have the power to solve those things. I hope that today we can suggest and agree some constructive next steps.

Earlier this year, Liberal Democrat colleagues and I recognised the importance of the Government’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill. Sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, will be one of the main enablers of aviation’s transition from polluting liquid fossil fuels to a future of hydrogen, battery and hybrid zero emission power plants. As part of that transition, SAF has a huge role to play in creating new green jobs and delivering on our energy security goals.

Local production creates jobs, improves resilience, reduces import dependence and stabilises prices, but without efficient resource allocation and strategic investment, future refinery closures could create severe supply bottlenecks and undermine our energy independence. It is equal parts encouraging that there is consensus among the serious political parties in this country about the need for transition and energy security, and concerning that from different ends of the spectrum, the Greens and Reform are either wilfully ignorant or unwilling to accept that supporting the oil refining industry to transition is critical.

The Greens seem willing to turn their back on any of the major technologies involved in the just transition of our fossil fuel infrastructure. They are locked into the pursuit of an ideological purity that sees those companies and producers solely as the problem and not as part of the solution. Reform’s static, stagnant and staggering belief that net zero is either bound to hurt working people or just bad in and of itself, only gives them the self-satisfied and smug smile of someone who thinks they know all the answers, but that could not be further from the truth.

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Member talks about hurting working people. Does he not agree that the closure of the oil refineries hurts working people?

[Luke Taylor]

I completely agree. That is why we are talking about a transition. It may well bring shivers to the hon. Member’s spine to talk about transitions, but it is critical that we talk about them in a reasonable and sensible way, and about how we look forward to the future rather than to the past. Reform’s approach is equally dogmatic and damaging as that of the Green party and has already been found wanting in practice in local government.

We can only make the transition a reality if we grasp the opportunity to utilise our existing oil refining infrastructure to turn to the chemistry of the future, with a diverse set of feedstocks from a wide range of supply points. We should be working with industry on delivering that, but industry leaders tell me that on the critical steps that the Government should be taking, they are going ignored or unheard.

Let us take bioethanol, for example. At the start of 2025, the UK bioethanol sector provided 895 million litres of renewable fuel production capacity and thousands of direct and indirect jobs. It was also a significant market for British agriculture and providing critical co-products such as carbon dioxide for the NHS, and for the food and drink sector. As of December 2025, the industry has been halved, following the US-UK trade deal.

An immediate solution would be to transition that bioethanol to SAF, as the alcohol-to-jet technology being developed in the UK can convert it into jet fuel. Under the SAF mandate rules, however, bioethanol readily produced in the UK—sustainable enough for a car engine—has been deemed not sustainable enough for a jet engine. Will the Minister consider the request of industry to support the UK’s bioethanol industry to continue operations and simultaneously support SAF production by allowing bioethanol use under the SAF mandate? The upcoming call for evidence on the role of crops under the UK SAF mandate should be released urgently, and a pragmatic approach taken.

Similarly, opening hydrogen storage subsidies to include liquid fuel infrastructure would ensure that existing assets could play a role in the hydrogen economy. Hydrogen storage is critical, but hydrogen production and usage are also critical to our future renewable goals and to providing the supply of SAF that will be required to decarbonise aviation. DFT rules state that, to make compliant SAF in the UK, hydrogen must be green hydrogen—rightly—and cannot be supported by the hydrogen production business model, a scheme established by DESNZ to get UK hydrogen production off the ground. That alone is not controversial. However, there is no green hydrogen available in the UK that will not be supported by the HPBM, which means that a portion of SAF using these renewable molecules will be uncompliant and, essentially, very expensive fossil jet fuel, despite it actually being green. I convey to the Minister the ask from industry that the DFT and DESNZ should be urgently working together to ensure interconnectivity with hydrogen policy and SAF policy, so that SAF producers are not penalised for using domestic industry?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, the Climate Change Act 2008 is now an issue that divides this House. I think Rain Newton-Smith, the director general of the CBI, put it very well recently when she said,

“The Climate Act has been the bedrock for investment flowing into the UK.”

Ripping up the framework that has given investors confidence that the UK is serious about sustainable growth through a low-carbon future would damage our economy. Seeking to abolish the Climate Change Act is not just a betrayal of young people—it is anti-jobs and anti-investment.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

May I gently remind the Energy Secretary that it is his job to answer questions from MPs on behalf of their constituents? I will ask the same question that I asked him last time: if the UK became net zero tomorrow, by how much would it reduce the Earth’s temperature?

[Ed Miliband]

I will give the hon. Gentleman the answer I gave him last time. Action by the UK makes a difference here. Of course, we are 1% of global emissions, but our action means that other countries act. Where is the evidence for that? Well, it actually happened. When the Climate Change Act passed, 60 other countries passed their own versions of it. Net zero was signed into law in this country, and now 80% of global GDP is covered by net zero. That is the difference the UK makes. I believe in Britain; the hon. Gentleman does not.

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I am happy to follow up on anything specific with the hon. Gentleman, but I can tell him that I get daily updates on assessments on exactly that point. Clearly, the first week of the insolvency saw some disruption to supplies leaving, but our evidence pointed to the fact that those commercial contracts were able to be renegotiated and to adjust to that. We are continuing to monitor to ensure there is no disruption, and there is no assessment at the moment that would suggest any impact at all on fuel security. Clearly, we will continue to do that, and if I can follow up on specifics, I will do so.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

What a pathetic turnout today from the party of the workers: just four Labour MPs have turned up to speak out on behalf of the Prax Lindsey workers. What I want to know from the Minister is if it is true that a foreign company has already been lined up to asset-strip and decommission this site—yes or no?

[Michael Shanks]

First, I think the hon. Gentleman is misjudging the mood of this question, which is about workers affected by redundancy. I hear nothing from him on those workers who are hearing the news this week. On his point, we assessed a number of bids for the business as a going concern. None of those bids were credible, which is why the official receivers made the decision to cease refining. Some bids are interested in parts of the site for a range of different things, but I am not party to those bids. They are commercially sensitive bids that will be assessed on the basis of how many jobs can be retained and the industrial opportunities on that site, which is what we are driving forward. I would just say to him that spreading nonsense and rumours, either in this House or on social media, does absolutely nothing to support the workers on that site.

State of Climate and Nature

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is completely right, and it is a scheme that we want to expand. It has been incredibly successful, and it is a no-brainer—using the natural resources of the sun to cut energy bills and release money for frontline services.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The statement from the Energy Secretary sounded like a desperate attempt to save his own job, but he is right that the British people need protecting: they need protecting from the Energy Secretary, because businesses that I visit say every single week that his madcap ideas are killing growth, business and jobs. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he can answer one simple question, which he has already refused to answer: by how much would the Earth’s temperature be reduced if the UK became net zero tomorrow?

Solar Farms

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Obviously, I like to bring people together in consensus, and I think there is consensus in the House that there is a place for solar—on roofs. Of course, I like to lead by example, so I have put solar panels on the roofs of my industrial buildings. Then, one can sell electricity to the occupier beneath and ease the considerable pressure on the national grid.

Surely solar farms are completely inappropriate. We have been hearing about thousands and thousands of acres of solar farms. In the great, glorious county of Lincolnshire, there are applications and plans for 40,000 acres of solar panels on top-quality farmland. That is completely inappropriate. It would destroy not only that farmland, but—this has not been mentioned—great jobs in the county of Lincolnshire for the next 20 to 30 years. That is absolute madness. It is also so unfair. Those living in a village or small town in the countryside might all of a sudden find themselves surrounded not by glorious fields, but by black plastic. There is no justification for that, or fairness in it.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the large battery energy storage plants that will be required as we use more solar farms, but is he aware of the danger that they pose to the public and the environment?

[Richard Tice]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for common sense. Most solar farms now include huge battery storage systems, which, we have learned, are very dangerous. Three of them have gone up in flames just this year in the United Kingdom. The fires cannot be put out; they must be left to burn out. What happens when those systems burn? Toxic fumes are released, including hydrogen fluoride, and toxins seep into the ground, as we have learned from California, where one went up in flames. There are massive dangers from those battery storage systems, but nobody is talking about that—and by the way, no one knows who is responsible for battery storage system health and safety.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is right: this clean energy transition is about creating jobs. I was delighted to open the factory, which is creating 200 jobs and is a £40 million investment, manufacturing cylinders for heat pumps. This is an opportunity that this Government are going to seize for Britain.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

T5.   This Secretary of State thinks it is a good idea to fill our fields with solar panels, at a cost of billions of pounds to the British taxpayer. I hate to break it to him, but solar panels rely on sunshine, so why is he now supporting a project to block out the sunshine?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman never ceases to amaze me, and not in a good way. Reform has made its decision; I am not sure what the Conservatives’ position is. Cheap, clean, home-grown power is the answer for Britain, because it gives us energy security and frees us from the petrostates and dictators. We are in favour of it; Reform is against it. Goodness knows where the Conservative party is.

Warm Home Discount

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Citizens Advice teams, and the network of third-party organisations and charities that they work with, are providing some of the most vital support to our constituents at a really difficult time. Citizens Advice is a key partner. We work with it and engage with it. I am going across the country meeting its teams, because we absolutely need their help to target support at the most vulnerable.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, but not for the madness contained within it. Recently, we have discovered a new gas field in Lincolnshire. We could frack the gas, yet we are still importing fracked gas from the United States, which is creating all sorts of mayhem in the atmosphere. Does the Minister agree that it would be better for the environment if we fracked our own gas, rather than importing it from America?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am disappointed that the hon. Member did not listen to my statement. If he had listened to it properly, he would not have come up with that statement. Once again, there will be a mix, but we are clear that the quickest route to driving down energy bills is through clean power by 2030. That is sprinting at it. There is no other route to delivering energy security and financial security for our country. The industry is behind us on this, and we are working to deliver it.

Biomass Generation

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend makes the point for me. He forgets, of course, that the Conservatives are under new management, so it is all fine—we just forget everything that happened in the last 14 years and move on. Of course, we have had to pick up the pieces from the last 14 years, and while the Conservatives will not take responsibility for those decisions, we have grasped the challenges and are moving forward as quickly as possible.

The truth is that not only did we inherit an energy system without the long-term planning it should have, but Drax did not have a deal that was good for the climate, good for energy security or good for the hard-working people of this country, who paid year after year for the subsidies that the previous Government negotiated. We have halved the subsidy every year, putting money back into people’s pockets and, of course, making sure that any excess profits come back to the Exchequer.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The net zero madness coming from this place is truly staggering. Bearing in mind that this power station used to burn coal from a coalmine less than 20 miles away, we are now transporting wood from 3,000 miles away. We are paying over £10 billion in subsidies for this power station, and it is producing four times more CO₂ than a coal-fired power station. Can the Minister explain how this is contributing to net zero?

[Michael Shanks]

I was not aware that it is the Reform party’s policy to reopen the coalmines—

[Lee Anderson]

Yes, it is.

[Michael Shanks]

That is good to know.

I am proud that, as a country, we have moved past coal-fired power generation, which is incredibly destructive for our environment. We closed the last coal power station, at Ratcliffe-on-Soar, last year. Its workforce proudly recognised the role they played in powering the country for many years, while also recognising that the drive to net zero is important. While we are building a clean power system that delivers energy security for the future, the Reform party would take us back to the stone age.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I have said, showing domestic leadership gives us the credibility to show international leadership too. We will be doing both.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

T3. Forests in North America are being chopped down to supply wood to burn at Drax power station, at a cost of £2 million a day in subsidies, while pensioners will perish this winter. Does the Minister agree that it is time to end this net zero madness and admit that fossil fuels are “a gift of the God?”

[Michael Shanks]

It perhaps will not surprise the hon. Gentleman or the House that I am not going to agree with his final point. Net zero is incredibly important to deliver climate leadership, lower bills and the jobs of the future. But on biomass, we rightly expect full compliance with all regulatory obligations on biomass, and consumers rightly recognise the high standard of accountability from generators.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I completely agree. The only way to permanently protect hard-working families and businesses from the high energy bills from which many are still suffering is to get ourselves off our reliance on the volatile fossil fuel markets. That is why we are rolling out at pace and at scale the clean power necessary to do so, which not only gives us energy security but creates good jobs, brings down bills and helps us to tackle the climate crisis.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that 25% of the UK is situated on top of coalmines, which can provide geothermal energy to heat houses and businesses in places like Ashfield. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can make that work in coalfield communities?

[Michael Shanks]

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question—which I must say is somewhat of a surprise. I will absolutely meet him to discuss that. We have been clear that any technologies can be part of the solution and, if that can be part of the picture, I will meet him to discuss the options and the technology more generally.