Oil Refining Sector

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this Adjournment debate, and I thank Mr Speaker for granting it. As I advised the Speaker’s Office and with the Minister’s agreement, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) will take a few minutes of my time. To some extent, the points I will be making are similar to those in my Westminster Hall debate, which took place on 11 December.

Before I turn to the specific issue of the closure of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency, I want to question the Government’s position regarding energy security. The loss of Lindsey oil refinery will reduce the UK to just four refineries. All of that makes us even more reliant on imports in a turbulent global situation. As we know, world markets can result in supplies being disrupted. At a time when we have an unpredictable American Administration, we are becoming more and more reliant on American-owned businesses, and I question whether that is wise.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for introducing the debate. Of course, as local Members of Parliament, we must be primarily concerned with our constituents who have worked at the refinery. Is it not the point, which he powerfully makes—we have just had a debate on Ukraine—that in an increasingly dangerous world, the Government must look into their own hearts about whether their policies on energy security are meeting national security?

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, who makes an important point and strengthens the argument I was trying to make. We are exporting skilled jobs, and the Government seem to find that acceptable. The Minister has previously stated that the market would adjust as, indeed, it has, but it raises the question of whether, if another refinery were to close, at what point we will recognise that we must retain some refining capacity in the UK—surely for strategic reasons, if no other.

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate and for his Westminster Hall debate. We sit on opposite sides of the Chamber, but I thoroughly respect how much he has stood up for his constituents and the wider oil refining industry in the United Kingdom, and I thank him for that.

I will speak about Grangemouth and specifically the jobs that have been lost there—

[Brian Leishman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that the debate was on the wider UK refining sector. On that note, we talk about just transition—it is often mentioned in this Chamber—but job losses and no future jobs are the definition of a very unjust transition.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Equally, I recognise how he has stood up for his constituents over the Grangemouth issue, and I compliment him on that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I also thank the hon. Member for bringing forward the debate. He is right to refer to the Lindsey oil refinery, but all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is affected by the sector if we become vulnerable and reliant on foreign entities. Does he agree that for the nation’s energy security and future energy provision, we need to right this wrong and invest in British-based refineries and energy provision, because otherwise everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will suffer as a result?

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. No debate would be complete without such an intervention. He is absolutely right that it is the United Kingdom’s energy security that we are referring to.

To turn to the future of the Lindsey refinery, which has been part of the local economy in my constituency for over 50 years, the closure is a tragedy not just for the immediate workforce, 124 of whom have already been made redundant, but for the area as a whole: the bars, restaurants, hotels, haulage firms, Humberside airport, catering suppliers—the list goes on. North Lincolnshire council receives around £2 million a year in business rates, which could steadily reduce over coming years. Needless to say, that would leave an enormous hole in its budget, which would have a consequent impact on the local community.

At last week’s question time, the Secretary of State said in reply to me that fault lay with the owner, Prax. I agree that the directors bear responsibility, but it is my constituents who are feeling the consequences. A Minister has previously stated that the Government are not in the business of saving failed businesses—even, it seems, when they are a vital national resource.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The hon. Member is right that the UK Government said that they are not in the business of saving failing businesses, but they have washed their hands of some of the key factors that contribute to those businesses failing. For example, they are signalling about new licences in the North sea, but these refineries use vast amounts of energy. In the UK, we enjoy the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. That is the Government’s responsibility.

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that energy costs have played a major part not only in the struggles of Lindsey oil refinery, but in those of other businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses. The Government’s comment that they are not in the business of saving businesses seems rather strange coming from Labour.

Ministers have repeatedly said that there is a legal process that the insolvency practitioners must follow. Of course, I accept that. I have previously said that I feel that the Government are hiding behind the administrators, because they have refused to consider the wider implications of the refinery closure, for example on the local economy, the workforce and national energy security.

I have asked on more than one occasion if the Government would prefer a sale of the whole business that would allow it to resume production. Alarm bells rang for me when I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), following my Westminster Hall debate. It said:

“The sales process remains ongoing, with the Official Receiver and Special Managers continuing to engage with all interested parties. However, they have confirmed that none of the credible”—

that is the important word—

“offers received would enable a return to refining operations within the next few years or allow all employees to be retained.”

I note that she refers to “credible” bids—so we have an acknowledgment that there were indeed credible bids—and to a timeframe. That contradicts the Government’s repeated statements that there were no credible bids. Either there were credible bids or there were not. Which is it, Minister?

In fairness to the Minister, when the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and I met him last week, he did at least acknowledge that the Government would have preferred a sale of the business in its entirety.

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

Picking up that point, if there was a serious bid to buy the whole site—to invest in it, keep it going, maintain the jobs and grow the number of jobs—surely that should have been taken into account, not only in the interests of the local area, but in the strategic interests of Lincolnshire and the country. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore ask the Minister to ensure full transparency in this whole process so that we can establish whether or not there were credible alternative bids to keep Lindsey oil refinery going?

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman supports the point that I was making. I got it in writing from the Under-Secretary that there were credible bids. The issue of credible bids is one of the most important unanswered questions following last week’s announcement about the sale of the assets to Phillips 66, which I should say is an excellent local employer and provides hundreds of well-paid jobs. I have corresponded or met with four consortia that wanted to buy the business in its entirety. When I spoke to the union representative yesterday, he said that there were seven such expressions of interest. The four consortia I have been in contact with referred to FTI Consulting—the agents—and have reached the same conclusion: they have been ignored and not allowed to put forward their case in sufficient detail for any informed judgment to be arrived at.

The Minister will no doubt be aware of an email to the Prime Minister from James Ascot, who is acting on behalf of Axiom. In the email, Mr Ascot said that Ministers

“have publicly stated that no bids were received for the full Lindsey Oil Refinery site that would safeguard the future of refining operations and protect jobs. This statement is factually false. Our company did submit a fully funded, credible bid for the entire site on behalf of our client, expressly structured to preserve and continue operations, safeguard jobs and provide a full credit and liability solution, and a separate cash acquisition value of £400 million… This bid existed.”

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way again. He is setting out a seriously curious sequence of events for a well-intentioned Government relative to a vital industry. Is he concerned, as I am, that this is more about the beliefs of the Secretary of State than the industrial imperatives of these islands? The Government are failing in their pursuit of decarbonisation, but they are succeeding in deindustrialisation.

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the Government’s overall policies in relation to net zero.

Adam Wilson of Falcon Petroleum wrote to me describing

“the unsatisfactory experience we have had with the bidding process with FTI… We own and operate 4 refineries in Europe and the middle east. With advancement of technology we have been able to go carbon neutral at all our refineries. We had pledged to turn LOR carbon neutral within 2 years if we had successfully purchased it.”

I could give other examples, but what I have said so far makes it clear that the approaches to FTI from consortia that wish to purchase the whole business and continue production have been rebuffed. Potential investors, employees and all those affected have a right to know why. The Government have chosen not to get involved. Yes, they have offered a training guarantee, which is helpful, but much more is required. At a meeting with me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes last week, the Minister suggested that the Minister for Investment, Lord Stockwood of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and local authorities and all agencies could help to provide investment in the area. We must sit around the table with them at an early opportunity. We need better transport connections, and early decisions from the Government on the many proposals in their in-tray that could boost the Humber region economy.

To sum up, why did the Government not act to ensure that production continued, and engage more fully in the process to achieve that? When will the Minister and Lord Stockwood visit the area and put in place a structure that helps us to recover the local economy? How many jobs will be saved by the P66 deal? The receiver’s job is to ensure the best deal for creditors, so will the Minister explain why a sale of the assets rather than the business better achieves that? The Government are one of the creditors, so how much are they owed and how much of it will the P66 deal return to the Treasury? I look forward to his response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate York College on its work. I know from my constituency in Doncaster, where we are to get a second university technical college specialising in green skills, the importance of that and the excitement of young people about this future. By turning their backs on clean energy, the Opposition turn their backs on young people. Clean energy is the future—it is one of the fastest growing sectors. We want it for Britain, we want it for York and we want it for Doncaster, and we will make it happen.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Sadly, it is not job creation that faces many of my constituents, particularly those who work at the Lindsey oil refinery. The Secretary of State knows that Axiom and others submitted bids that would have continued production at the refinery. Instead, we now have a deal with Phillips 66 that transfers the assets but not the business. Will he undertake to make a statement to the House and to answer the many unanswered questions that surround the deal?

[Ed Miliband]

First of all, what happened at Lindsey—we should be clear that the responsibility lies with the owner, which ran the business into the ground—is tragic for the workers and their families, and I have talked to those workers. The hon. Gentleman will know—my hon. Friend the Energy Minister has spoken to him about this—that the process involved the official receiver, who looked for the best and most viable bid, but there was no viable bid to keep refining going at Lindsey. That is why P66 was chosen, and we are determined to work with the company to maximise the number of jobs that it can deliver for the local community.

Oil Refining Sector

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the oil refining sector.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. I am pleased that this debate has attracted considerable support, particularly from north of the border, and that today The Times had a timely editorial on this issue.

My constituency is in northern Lincolnshire on the south bank of the Humber, which has been christened “the UK’s Energy Estuary”. In recent years, the Humber has become a world-leader in the offshore and renewable energy sector—something we are proud of locally. However, while the Humber is full of opportunity for offshore and renewable energy and will play a significant role in the UK’s net zero efforts, we must not overlook the UK’s carbon energy needs as we make the transition to cleaner energy sources. We must face the fact that a significant portion of our total energy consumption still comes from oil, gas and coal and will continue to do so. The UK’s annual total primary energy consumption is around 130 million to 140 million tonnes of oil equivalent; fossil fuels made up roughly 79% to 81% of that in the year 2022-23.

The Humber has played a significant role in ensuring that that demand is met. Until the crisis at Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency earlier this year, the Humber could boast of producing a third of the UK’s refined fuel, with two of the UK’s six major oil refineries based in the Humber region. Now, as we approach the end of 2025, only four operational refineries remain in the UK, following this year’s closure of Grangemouth, with significant job losses, and the uncertainty at the aforementioned Lindsey refinery where over 400 people are employed. Even more striking is the fact that the number of refineries is down from 18 in the 1970s.

Sadly for the oil refining sector, most people do not even realise that it exists or appreciate its importance, yet the sector is a vital part of the UK’s energy security. A number of our crucial sectors rely on it, including the transport industry and defence sectors. All Members will know that oil refineries produce products that are essential for our critical energy needs, such as petrol, diesel, jet fuel and fuel oil. The Lindsey refinery has a capacity equivalent to around 35% of British petrol consumption and 10% of British diesel, and also supplies aviation fuel to Heathrow via pipeline.

Yet the House of Commons Library states:

“Refinery output in 2024 was 48 million tonnes. This was 55% below the 1973 peak.”

Output in 2024

“was around 14% below levels from the late 2010s and more than 40% below output from the start of the century.”

That is worrying considering that refineries supply 47% of the UK’s final energy demand, as 100% of aviation, 97% of road and 61% of rail transport still relies on liquid fuels. The refineries also support 100,000-plus jobs across the UK, with 4,000 directly in the refineries. We collect £37 billion annually in tax—that is duty and VAT—from them, and they deliver low-carbon fuels that have an impact equivalent to removing 3 million cars from the road each year. That is not to mention the fact that ours are among the lowest-carbon refineries globally—in fact, 80% of the UK’s top import partners have a higher carbon intensity—yet despite their importance we have seen the closure at Grangemouth and the uncertainty at Lindsey.

What does the future hold? UK oil refineries continue to face a number of challenges. Of course demand for refined products will decrease as the country continues to reduce its emissions in accordance with the legally binding commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, though that target may change. Moreover, energy is the single largest cost of operating a refinery. The industry faces high energy costs, and carbon costs negatively impact the competitiveness of UK refineries. UK refineries are essentially competing with one hand tied behind their back while their competitors pay little or nothing in carbon costs. That is on top of the issue of unequal access to decarbonisation opportunities.

Our route to lower emissions must not come at the price of deindustrialisation or at the expense of our energy security. As an editorial in The Times today points out, some in the Government are so hostile to fossil fuels and so beholden to the green ideology that they are willing to sacrifice our future income and tolerate the jobs that are being lost. We must put the national interest first. Moreover, our climate targets are still some way off, so in the meantime we must continue to rely on the products that refineries produce.

The sector remains vital for today’s economy, yet our refineries are closing. We must realise that closing UK refineries does not reduce demand; it merely shifts production abroad. That, of course, often leads to higher emissions. We are thereby exporting jobs outside the UK while failing in our efforts to cut emissions. Losing further capacity would therefore leave the UK increasingly dependent on imports and the unpredictability of global politics, relying on other nations that often have weak rules on environmental protection, labour rights and safety.

Moreover, once a refinery closes, it does not return. The skills, infrastructure and investment are lost permanently. We must also consider the impact on the local economy and local people that closures cause. At Lindsey, over 400 people are directly employed on the site, and well over 1,000 rely on it through the supply chain. As North Lincolnshire council said in its position statement on Lindsey oil, the implications of any closure of the site will have far-reaching consequences for the local economy and the people employed directly and indirectly.

The council has stated that the potential closure of the refinery will have a significant impact on local market confidence, particularly following the turmoil at British Steel earlier this year. As such, failure to properly support the businesses impacted could multiply exponentially the impact of the closure. Moreover, the south Humber bank, where the site is located, relies on the interconnectivity of its industrial supply chains. As such, the refinery is not an isolated operator but an integral node in a wider network that supplies products to downstream users, and disruption at one site can quickly ripple across the regional economy.

These integrated clusters work in tandem, reflecting the modern industrial model, and our economic resilience relies on the system being maintained, thereby ensuring long-term industrial sustainability in the UK. I note the Scottish Affairs Committee’s conclusions on the handling of Grangemouth, which can be found in the Committee’s recently published report on Scotland’s oil and gas industries. I am sure the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), will delve more deeply into the detail of the report, though let me quickly say now that the report stated that both the UK and Scottish Governments should have acted sooner to prepare for the crisis in Falkirk.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I hear the hon. Member on the strategic importance of oil refineries; we have seen it in Grangemouth for over 100 years. Back in February 2024, in response to a question from the former Member for East Lothian, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the then Prime Minister, described the closure of Grangemouth refinery as “obviously a commercial decision”. Does the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) agree with that characterisation by the former Prime Minister, who was at the time his party’s leader, given that he is describing—and I agree with him—the strategic role that oil refineries play in his community?

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Member makes an important point: it is the case that such decisions are not solely commercial; the Government must consider, more widely, energy security and the impact on the economy.

In preparation for this debate, I received representations from various interested parties that are dependent on the oil refining sector. They have outlined their concerns, some of which I have mentioned already, and the solutions they would like to see put forward. One issue that has been mentioned to me is the expansion of the scope of the carbon border adjustment mechanism to include oil refineries’ products. As Members may know, the CBAM is a tax levied on goods at the border based on their carbon content. Expanding the CBAM to products from oil refineries based overseas, as the Government proposed in their autumn Budget, would enable domestic oil refineries to remain competitive and stop them fighting with one arm tied behind their back.

I mentioned that the refining sector is subject to ever-increasing regulatory burdens and carbon pricing. Sadly, the impact of net zero politics, particularly the UK emissions trading scheme, is driving rapid and sustained deindustrialisation of the British economy. Refining receives substantially lower free allowances under the scheme compared with other industries, such as steel and cement, and ETS costs are one of the highest expenditures in a refinery’s operating budget. Competitors in other regions do not face those costs, which seriously damages the competitiveness of UK refineries. We must realise that the ETS damages our energy security and should be urgently repealed. Longer-term solutions may include bringing refined products fully into the UK CBAM or ensuring that the UK retains control over refineries in any future UK-EU carbon market linkage agreement. If we do not want to let this issue get any more out of control, we must act now.

Before concluding, I refer back to the situation at Lindsey oil, because the company is in administration. We have a situation in which FTI Consulting, acting on behalf of the official receiver, is engaged in discussions with potential buyers and investors. Those talks are rightly confidential, and when questioned, Ministers have repeatedly said that they are awaiting the recommendations from FTI. That inevitably feeds speculation through the grapevine that angers employees and their union representatives. I have held meetings with two consortia that are interested in buying the whole site and continuing operations, and the leader of North Lincolnshire council has held discussions with a third. Do the Government support a deal that would retain the refinery complete? Until now there has been no answer. I again ask the Minister: do the Government favour that option and, if necessary, would they provide some support?

Have the Government instructed FTI to prioritise jobs? A letter from Unite the Union to the Secretary of State throws that into doubt. In the letter, Unite says:

“In this vein you informed me and the Unite reps for the refinery on two occasions that you had advised FTI that bids which save the jobs should be prioritised and that if needed, there could be government money for a viable bid which saved the site.”

Is Government money available? The reply seems to throw doubt on all of that. The reply from the Minister for Energy to Sharon Graham at Unite says that the Government

“have made repeatedly clear that long-term and sustainable employment is a priority for the Government”,

but that does not necessarily mean it is a priority that has been passed on to the official receiver.

At a meeting with me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), the Minister for Energy assured us that if the worst came to the worst and the refinery were to close, or there were to be large- scale job losses, one option would be for the Government to work with MPs, local authorities and other agencies to form a taskforce to consider what help and support would be available to revive the local economy. Is that offer still open? My understanding is that the Government have said that there will be no further redundancies until the end of March, which I welcome. Could today’s Minister clarify whether the Government are meeting the cost of that, or whether the costs will be taken into account by the administrators and the amount available to creditors adjusted accordingly?

The future of not just Lindsey oil but the whole oil refining sector is at stake. The Government must review their current position and act to secure the industry for the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

Yes, I will. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the role of trade unions in the renewable industry, too.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The hundreds of workers at Lindsey oil refinery will have noted that in response to an earlier question, the Minister did not attempt to respond on the future of the refinery. At least two investors are looking to take over the whole site. If they prove satisfactory, can the Minister assure me that the Government will back the project?

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

I am happy to have further conversations with the hon. Gentleman. I know that the refinery is in his constituency and that he cares deeply about it. A process is under way—led by the official receiver, because it is an insolvency process. It is considering a number of bids to make sure they are viable, and will conclude in the coming weeks so that there is certainty for the workforce. We have said throughout that we want to support as much investment in that site as possible.

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right, and it is deeply frustrating that we inherited many of these issues, which were unresolved for such a long time. These are not problems that arrived in the past 12 months. Bringing in the refinery sector for talks with Government about the challenges would have been a fairly obvious thing to do at least once in the past 13 years. Clearly, that did not occur to the previous Government, and we have inherited challenges.

My hon. Friend is right to say that consultations will take time, unfortunately. It is right that we conduct a proper consultation to make sure that there are not any unintended consequences. The Minister for Industry, who is a Minister in both the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Business and Trade, is looking at how we can do that as quickly as possible. I am happy to follow that up with her. My hon. Friend is also right that nobody wants to be talking about redundancies in any part of our economy, and we are doing everything we can to bring down prices to prevent redundancies.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

This is a massive blow to my Brigg and Immingham constituency—most particularly to those directly employed by the refinery, but also to the wider economy of the sub-region. Will the Minister reconsider what he just said about statutory redundancy? I want the maximum support given to those workers.

I will raise two other points. First, North Lincolnshire council published a green growth zone document last year about the future of the regional economy. As we discussed yesterday, I urge the Minister to consider an urgent meeting, at which all involved are brought in for a roundtable discussion. Secondly, if he is not doing so already, may I urge him to speak to his colleagues who are local government Ministers? North Lincolnshire council will lose £2.6 million in business rates. Needless to say, that is a massive blow that would affect the delivery of services.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, and for meeting me to discuss the matter yesterday. I appreciate the impact that the closure will have, not just on those refinery workers who are directly impacted, but on the wider economy. We absolutely appreciate that there are ripple effects from a closure like this.

On the statutory redundancy point, we have looked at this, and have pushed to see if there is more action that the Government can take to change or give additional payments. It is not possible for Government to do that, not least because the Insolvency Service has to follow specific rules on creditors and how they operate in the event of an insolvency. However, the owners of the company have profited from this business, and they should do the right thing by the workforce that delivered that for them.

I have agreed to hold a roundtable discussion, and I previously met the two council leaders to talk about this. I am happy to arrange that discussion, and to have it with whoever is useful and wants to participate, because the hon. Gentleman is right about the opportunities. I am happy to engage on the point about North Lincolnshire and business rates. Although the refinery will not continue to be a going concern, we are assessing bids from those who are interested in the site; we hope those bids will deliver jobs and economic benefit, and that business rates income will come from new industries on the site. That is not as good as retaining the refinery in its current form, but we hope we can make some progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right to stress the challenges faced by businesses. The Government are committed to backing businesses. We are working with the regulator to make sure that the system is fair for everyone and, as is set out in our industrial strategy, from 2027 the new British industrial competitiveness scheme will reduce electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt-hour, which will benefit thousands of electricity-intensive industries, including the ones in his constituency. We are very clear that we are backing businesses, and we will do everything we can to support them in driving down bills.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Energy costs are an issue that the Prax oil refinery has brought to my attention over the years as a problem it has been facing. I appreciate the calls I have had with the Minister for Energy about this. I was able to visit the plant on Friday, and there was clearly growing concern, with hundreds of jobs at risk. What assurance can the Minister offer my constituents who are affected by this situation?

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for her questions. By talking of her recent visit to the refinery, she underlines the issues that have come to light in such an incredibly short space of time, although the truth is that in uncovering some of this, we have discovered that it goes back some time. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that he has asked for an inquiry into the decisions that have been made. We need to get to the bottom of this and learn any lessons that we can.

My hon. Friend is right that we have to do everything we can to support the workers. We will continue to do that, and we will look at what support we can provide for them. At the moment, these are jobs at risk rather than redundancies that have been announced. We are doing everything we can to see whether someone is interested in buying the refinery as a going concern, in which case the workers would be retained. We will do everything we can to support those workers should that not come to fruition.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that under the current process, those workers will be entitled to statutory redundancy only. It is clear that the business’s leadership have a responsibility to those workers, not only because it is right and prudent for all owners of businesses like this to take responsibility for the workforce, but because, particularly given how this business has ended, they should take responsibility for the workers and the local community. We call on them to do the right thing and support the workers through this incredibly difficult period.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for the briefing he gave me earlier today. It is disturbing that when the Government reached out to the company for additional information, it was not forthcoming. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) asked some pertinent questions, one of which was how long the Government are prepared to support the workers and the refinery. It would be reassuring for many of my constituents who work there if the Minister could give some indication that there will be support at least in the medium term.

[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.

Biomass Generation

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I am tempted to say that we will have to ask the Conservatives that question, but they are under new management, so they do not know why the previous Government that they were all Ministers in made the decisions that they did. The truth is that for far too long—under, I think, eight different Conservative Energy Ministers—they signed off deal after deal with Drax with uncapped profits and nowhere near the sustainability criteria that they should have had, letting Drax do whatever it wanted with that power station. We have put a stop to that. Let us be really clear: we have halved the subsidy, taking £6 off every single bill in this country every single year, we have increased sustainability to 100%, and we are delivering the energy security this country needs, but we should not have been in the position on coming into office where there were nowhere near enough long-term plans for the future of our energy system.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I think I detected one item of agreement between the Minister and his shadow, which was that there needs to be a long-term solution and this is not a short-term fix. Surprisingly, there seems to be little support from the Government Benches for Drax, which plays a major part in the regional economy. In my own constituency, Associated British Ports invested £150 million in the facility to import the biomass, and a significant number of my constituents will be involved in the supply chain. Can the Minister give an assurance that he will bear in mind the impact on the local economy as we move forward to a longer-term solution?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, although I would gently point out that the shadow Minister and I agree on a lot more than he likes to pretend—or I like to pretend, perhaps. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are aware of the importance of the jobs at this particular power station and in the supply chain, and we will be working with Drax on what that looks like. We are of course changing the role that Drax will use the power station in Selby for, and I will ensure that I have those conversations about the supply chain. I would be happy to speak to him more about that in due course.

Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he speaks with great knowledge and expertise on these issues. He is absolutely right about the hard-to-abate sectors. I say to him what I said to the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson): there is a role for both blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, but that is within the context of a primarily renewables-based system that uses nuclear as well. It goes back to the point about needing all the technologies at our disposal if we are to surmount the challenges we face.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Humber area produces the most emissions in the country, and it is vital that we make progress in that region. Some £15 billion-worth of private investment stands ready. The Secretary of State mentioned that there will be a further announcement in the coming months. Could he perhaps advance that as quickly as possible in order that we can take our first steps towards reaching our targets?

National Grid Proposals: North East Lincolnshire

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise the issue of National Grid’s proposals for the Grimsby to Walpole route, which, if realised, will see stretches of pylons constructed across the countryside in Lincolnshire and neighbouring regions. There can be no doubt but that this would have a major impact on the environment and economy along the length of the route. My focus today is on the section passing through North East Lincolnshire, though I note the presence of Members from other affected constituencies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) led an excellent Westminster Hall debate on this matter on 2 May, and I fully support the points that he and others raised, but such is the concern—and to some extent anger—of local residents that I wanted to wait for an opportunity to focus on the effect on North East Lincolnshire. I am pleased, thanks to Mr Speaker, to have the opportunity to put on record my concerns about National Grid’s proposals.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is generous in allowing me to intervene to emphasise the case for South Holland and The Deepings, which faces exactly the menace he describes. What is proposed would compromise food security by using valuable agricultural land and blight the landscape, as well as endangering, in my judgment, the wildlife in the site of special scientific interest that covers the saltmarsh on the coast. This must be stopped, in the public interest and for the common good.

[Martin Vickers]

As my right hon. Friend says, it must be stopped, and that is what I and my constituents want.

My concerns reflect those of my constituents, a significant number of whom have been in touch with me in recent months to voice their understandable anger and concern at the National Grid plans. The main villages impacted are Brigsley, Ashby cum Fenby, Barnoldby le Beck and Waltham. These are attractive traditional villages that face being blighted by monstrous metal structures and cabling. While it may not be the legal case, the reality is that projects on this scale require popular consent if they are to be delivered well. There is no point in bulldozing through public opinion; this will lead to further resentment and distrust. There are alternatives and they must be considered. Decisions such as these are an opportunity for Governments to show that the views of local communities matter and that there are ways of delivering the much-needed improvements to the grid that take account of those views.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I am further down the east coast but I recognise the problems my hon. Friend is describing in terms of the impact on north-east Lincolnshire. In Suffolk Coastal—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) is also here—we have been concerned for some time about the lack of vision in using new technology to avoid the devastation not just of pylons but, thinking of Friston and Saxmundham in my constituency, of converters and other substations. Those would have a truly damaging impact on greenfield sites, and we should be doing everything we can to get them on to brownfield sites closer to where the electricity is being used. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) has indicated that must be stopped. I agree, and I also suggest we should at least have a moratorium until the 2025 strategy is ready.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the intervention and she is absolutely right: a moratorium is the way forward.

I have attended one National Grid consultation meeting and met representatives privately. It is not ideal that its plans remain vague as to the exact route; more concrete proposals would be beneficial to all involved. The National Grid has also given the impression to some local residents that this is a fait accompli, and I am sure the Minister will reassure them that is not the case. I also want to reassure them that is not the case. The consultations that National Grid is holding in the constituency and up and down the country must be meaningful, and they must be certain that Members from across the House will ensure they are meaningful.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate because what he describes affects Norfolk, Suffolk, and Harwich and North Essex in particular, and other Essex constituencies where the Government are not considering new technology at the moment. Instead of pylons, we could have high-voltage, direct-current underground systems of the kind that are now the default option in Germany, for example. Getting that on to the agenda would speed up that infrastructure, because it would not be nearly so controversial and mired in judicial review and courts processes.

[Martin Vickers]

Like other colleagues who have intervened, my hon. Friend highlights the point that new technologies are available which must be considered before a final decision is taken.

Infrastructure that transmits electricity across the country is nationally significant, and we accept that upgrades in one form or another are needed. Expanding the network will indeed lower consumer bills. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) noted in the debate on 2 May, transmission and distribution costs are now roughly 15% of every electricity bill. It will also secure our energy supplies as we decarbonise our energy production in pursuit of net zero.

Of course the most ideal routes from a resident perspective are also, according to National Grid, the most expensive. Building pylons is cheaper than burying cables or taking them offshore. Once we consider that this infrastructure is needed up and down the country, we realise that the cost becomes staggering. The Government argue that power lines buried underground are up to 10 times more expensive, although that is disputed and the cost often falls on to the bill payer. However, cost should not always be the primary factor in decision making: Governments and their agencies have wider considerations such as ensuring that the quality of life for their citizens is as pleasant as possible. They need to carry people with them by seriously considering every alternative and sharing their deliberations with the communities involved.

Similarly, there are indirect costs of building pylons that have nothing to do with their construction, but have been imposed as a tool to buy local support. An example of that is the announcement of community benefits schemes to be provided for the areas. That will be funding—although compensation might be a better phrase—for every overhead line and underground cable in an area, and the cost of that must be taken into account overall, as must the discounts of up to £1,000 for households closest to the new infrastructure. I am never opposed to local communities being given much-needed funding to improve the areas for the benefit of local residents—of course, it is only right that communities are compensated for inconvenience, particularly when it relates to such nationally significant work—but those costs will soon add up, and they must be included in calculations.

Unfortunately, constraints imposed by Government seem to have placed an emphasis in favour of pylons, as opposed to alternatives such as underground and offshore. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), standing in for the Minister in the debate on 2 May, said,

“overhead lines should be the strong starting presumption”.—[Official Report, 2 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 200WH.]

The phrase “strong presumption” is a loaded statement and does not indicate that full consideration will be given to alternatives. Though he did clarify that flexibility is possible

“where there is a high potential for widespread adverse landscapes and/or visual impacts.”—[Official Report, 2 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 200WH.]

Some clarity on what “high potential” and “widespread” means here would be welcome, given that many communities will have a valid case to say that both terms apply to developments in their area.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, as he is discussing the debate I secured in Westminster Hall. I welcome the contribution of many Members to that. Does he agree that the Minister rightly expressed that there is a huge amount of real feeling on our constituents’ behalf? It is right that the Government should listen to that and that this process needs to consider those feelings. Perhaps we should ask whether it should be paused while those feelings are taken fully into account.

[Martin Vickers]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Whether we call it a pause or a moratorium, we need to stop and reflect on where we have arrived.

I hope the Minister will confirm in his reply that although planning guidance contains an assumption in favour of pylons, full consideration of the alternatives will be put before Ministers. The proposals are short-sighted and incoherent, given the obvious necessity to rewire the grid to make it fit for the future and ensure we have the infrastructure in place to reach net zero. By 2050, the country will require two or three times the amount of electricity as today, but in respect of these plans, there is a clear failing of strategy in relation to how we ensure the necessary infrastructure.

My constituency is largely a rural one, as Lincolnshire is more broadly, and there are significant regional concerns regarding the impact of erecting pylons on prime agricultural land and what that will mean for our food security. In fact, when it comes to this land, even underground wiring is not ideal, given the disruption that might cause.

We are fortunate to benefit from an ever-increasing amount of electricity generated from offshore wind farms, and my constituency is fortunate to be on the Humber estuary, which is a leading force in the renewable energy sector. That presents an opportunity for an offshore grid transmitting much of our electricity away under the sea. At some point that electricity will have to come on land, but it would significantly reduce the need for pylons and overhead cables. We can learn here from examples in Belgium and Denmark.

I conclude by delivering a few messages to relevant stakeholders. To National Grid, I reiterate my previous remarks, where I stressed that it must consider the impact on residents in nearby villages before making any decisions and look to mitigate the impact on the visual environment to the greatest extent. I, like many of my colleagues, am in favour of extensive underground and undersea sections rather than utilising open countryside. I desperately hope that will be taken on board.

In that regard, I was encouraged by the Prime Minister’s reply on 20 March when, referring to me, he said:

“He will recognise the balance we need to strike by making sure that we give our country the energy security it needs but doing it in a way that is respectful of the impact on local communities. I will make sure that Ministers take into account the concerns he raised and that all the views of local constituents are taken into account.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 934.]

I do not want to make this speech too political. However, given that the ultimate decision on this matter is unlikely to be taken until next year, and consequently after the election, my message to whoever sits on the Treasury Bench and is responsible for deciding this matter is that I and my Conservative colleagues will not let it rest. The proposals as they stand will not get my support.

Finally, I say to the Minister that the Government have set out ambitious but sensible environmental targets. If we are to achieve those targets to reduce emissions, we will need to produce more electricity, and clearly that means that the additional infrastructure is required, but we must protect our visual environment.

I appreciate that Ministers cannot pre-empt National Grid’s final recommendations and must not prejudge issues that they will later have to determine, but I hope that the Minister will ensure that the views of my constituents, as well as those of others across the House, are front and centre in the process and that the wider impact on the environment and economy of north-east Lincolnshire, which I am privileged to represent, will be taken seriously. I assure my constituents that their voice will be heard and that I—and I know my colleagues—will fight any proposals that have a detrimental impact on their communities.