Oil Refining Sector

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. I see that seven Members are looking to speak. Let us start with six-minute speeches and see how we progress.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Euan Stainbank]

When the hon. Lady’s party was in power, in February 2024, in response to a question from the former Member for East Lothian, her then party leader said that the future of the Grangemouth refinery was “obviously a commercial decision”, essentially excluding themselves from taking any action. Does she agree or disagree with the former Prime Minister’s characterisation, considering what we have heard from the Conservative Benches—and I agree—about how oil refineries are strategically important? It was not a commercial decision, and something could have been done when her party was in office.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I am sure the hon. Lady will give the Minister enough time for her speech.

[Harriet Cross]

I absolutely will, so I will end on that point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I find the what-aboutery from Government Members extraordinary. They seem to think that because something has happened in the past, it is okay for something else to happen now. The Government are shutting down the UK oil and gas sector because they keep taxing it. Jobs such as those lost at Grangemouth are being lost every single week across the country as a result. If the hon. Member thinks that is okay, he should say so, but I do not think it is okay, and that is why I am fighting against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie White]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman intervened, as I was going to come on to his points—in particular, his interesting point about the national interest. I say to him gently that I feel we are working in the national interest, but the national interest includes energy security as well as respecting the science of climate change, which is happening. As he is the Father of the House, I genuinely listened to his points, but I was a little disappointed—[Interruption.] He can laugh all he likes, but I listened to his points. He talked about the UK being responsible for less than 1% of emissions. That is the case in terms of nation states, but I think the UK’s impact in the world is so much larger, whether through people following our policy decisions, the impact of our banking sector or our consumption of goods, which has also come up a lot.

We are looking at how we manage the transition, and we want to do it in a way that respects the science, but I am also competitive about where Britain can take advantage of these industries. We want to make sure that we have these industries, including the wind turbines that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but we also want to look at how we can make the transition justly and fairly. I will come on to that later in my speech.

Last month, the UK ETS Authority confirmed that current benchmarks will stay in place for the 2027 scheme. That decision gives refineries and other energy-intensive industries the certainty that they need. By maintaining those benchmarks, we are providing stability and breathing space, helping businesses plan, manage costs and prepare for future changes to the scheme.

We are also reviewing compensation for energy-intensive industries. We announced in the autumn Budget that we are assessing the feasibility of including refined products in the carbon border adjustment mechanism, so that imported goods face an equivalent carbon price and the sector’s efforts to decarbonise will not be undermined by carbon leakage. This is the refining sector’s top priority, which the Government are committed to exploring as one of several levers to support the sector’s long-term future. These measures demonstrate our commitment to supporting investment, driving innovation and ensuring that the refining sector remains competitive and resilient as we transition to a low-carbon economy.

Looking ahead, the Government are taking further steps to secure the long-term future of the UK refining sector and to ensure a just transition. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has established a dedicated team to work across Whitehall and with industry. A number of Members asked about working across Whitehall; we will continue to do that, to ensure that we maximise the impact. This will guide how we manage the transition, protect energy security and support jobs and local communities.

We will continue to engage closely with the fuel industry to identify practical measures that can strengthen the sector. That is why, in June, we convened the first ministerial—[Interruption.]

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I have a certain decorum from other Members while the Minister is speaking?

[Katie White]

Thank you, Mr Western.

That is why, in June, we convened the first ministerial roundtable with the refining industry in more than a decade, providing a clear signal of our commitment to partnership and dialogue. As announced in the autumn Budget, we will shortly launch a call for evidence to inform the UK’s long-term strategy for the downstream oil sector. That will seek industry views on the opportunities and barriers to transition, the risks facing the sector and the types of support needed to deliver and manage a competitive transition. These actions underline our determination to work hand in hand with industry. I thank the Scottish Affairs Committee for its recent report, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for sharing it.

The refining sector has faced long-standing challenges, and recent closures underline the scale of change. Petroineos’s decision to end refining at Grangemouth was disappointing. As my hon. Friend said, while the difficulties there were well known, there was no Government plan in place before we took office. Within weeks of doing so, we worked with the Scottish Government to put together a £100 million package to support the community and invest in the local workforce, along with tailored support to secure good alternative jobs. When we came into government, there was no overall plan for Grangemouth from either the SNP or the Tories. We have put one in place.

We are committed to securing Grangemouth’s long-term industrial future. We are working closely with the Scottish Government, the Office for Investment and Scottish Enterprise to attract future investment and transform the area into a clean energy and sustainable technology hub. This effort is already delivering results. We have received over 100 inquiries to date, and the investment pipeline is supported by the £14.5 million in funding announced at the Budget, alongside the National Wealth Fund’s £200 million for co-investment opportunities at Grangemouth.

Today, I can confirm that, along with the Scottish Government, we have made £3 million available for MiAlgae, an innovative biotechnology company that produces sustainable omega-3 rich products, which will create over 130 direct jobs at the site and 310 jobs across Scotland over five years. These steps demonstrate our commitment to a managed transition by supporting communities, attracting investment and ensuring that sites like Grangemouth—

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. The Question is—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Mr Western. You are a fellow member of the Panel of Chairs. Can we make it clear to our colleagues that it is normal courtesy for the Minister to allow the proposer of a motion some time to wind up, if only a minute? That did not happen on this occasion.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right that it is a courtesy, but my understanding—I think he will understand this, too—is that it is not an obligation. On this occasion it was not possible for the Minister to do that, given the number of interventions that we had, as well as the full contributions from all the Members who chose to speak.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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