Minister insists fuel supplies not under threat despite oil refinery closure
State Oil – the parent company of Prax Group, which owns the Lindsey refinery in North Lincolnshire – collapsed into administration last month, putting hundreds of jobs at risk.
Michael Shanks pledged to support the workers who are facing redundancy, but said there is little action the Government can take to improve the statutory redundancy offer.
Speaking in the Commons, he said: 'We have worked urgently to ensure the safety of the refinery site, the security of fuel supplies and to protect workers.
'This has also allowed time for bidders to express an interest in the site.
'Following a thorough process, the official receiver has rigorously assessed all the bids received and concluded that sale of the business as a whole is not a credible option.'
He added: 'A package has been offered to all those directly employed at the refinery, which guarantees their jobs and pay over the coming months.
'And alongside the usual support that is offered to workforces in insolvency situations, the Government will also immediately fund a comprehensive training guarantee for those refinery workers to ensure they have the skills needed and the support to find jobs, for example, in the growing clean energy workforce.'
The Lindsey site is one of only five large oil refineries remaining in the UK after the recent closure of the Grangemouth plant in Scotland.
Prax Group is led by majority owner and chairman and chief executive Sanjeev Kumar Soosaipillai, who bought the Lindsey oil refinery from French firm Total in 2021.
Shadow energy minister Andrew Bowie, who tabled the urgent question, claimed 625 jobs are at risk as he pressed the minister for an update on its investigation into the collapse of the company.
He also asked: 'What, if any, assessment has been made into the UK's resilience given the steep reduction in our refining capacity over the past six months?
'What, if any, assessment has been made on the increased reliance on imports that will be necessary as a result of the reduction in British refining capacity?'
Mr Shanks said fuel supplies had 'adjusted' in the past few weeks, adding: 'Our assessment suggests there isn't an immediate risk to fuel supplies locally or in the wider area, but we'll continue to monitor that.'
On the investigation, he said: 'There is not much I can update the House on at the moment, because the insolvency service is carrying out that investigation.'
Conservative MP Martin Vickers, whose Brigg and Immingham constituency includes the oil refinery, said he wanted to see 'the maximum support given to those workers'.
Mr Shanks replied: 'We have looked and pushed and pushed to see if there is more action Government can take to change or to give any additional payments.
'It's not possible for Government to do that, not least because the insolvency service has to follow very specific rules in terms of creditors and what their parameters are to operate in the event of an insolvency.
'But I do think the owners of this company have profited from this business, and they should do the right thing by the workforce that delivered that for them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Finextra
6 minutes ago
- Finextra
Corpay agrees $2.2bn Alpha Group takeover
Corporate payments outfit Corpay has agreed to buy British peer Alpha Group for $2.2 billion in cash. 0 This content has been selected, created and edited by the Finextra editorial team based upon its relevance and interest to our community. Alpha provides B2B cross border FX to corporations and investment funds in the UK and Europe, holding around $3 billion of deposits in over 7000 client accounts. Corpay says the acquisition will improve its FX technology stack and strengthen its ties with investment managers in Europe and beyond. Alpha shareholders will receive 4,250 pence per share, representing a 55% premium to the closing price on 1 May, the day before potential takeover talks were disclosed. An offer in May was rejected. This transaction meaningfully expands our relationships with investment managers and results in four Cross Border customer segments: corporates, financial institutions, investment funds and digital currency providers,' says Ron Clarke, CEO, Corpay. Corpay has had a busy few months, taking a minority stake in business payments automation platform AvidXchange in a deal also involving TPG, and securing a $300 million investment from Mastercard for a three per cent stake in its cross-border business.
Telegraph
7 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's grotesque lies about illegal migration are finally being exposed
Sir Keir Starmer is the worst possible Prime Minister at the most inauspicious of times. The lies, double-standards and moral blackmail fuelling our illegal immigration crisis threaten to tear this country apart, and yet Starmer stands frozen, unwilling as well as incapable of rising to the challenge. He is a cardboard cutout of a prime minister, an ideological automaton at a time when the public craves leadership, reassurance and change. If he truly wanted to defuse tensions, and if he were even a half-decent politician, Starmer would make the trip to Essex and, like de Gaulle addressing the crowd in Algiers in 1958, tell the law-abiding middle class protesters in front of the Bell Hotel in Epping that he understands them. He would order the transfer of the asylum-seekers to a better location. He would condemn extremists and agitators of all hues, far-Right as well as far-Left, and insist that all violence is intolerable. He would rebuke Essex Police, the wokest police force in the most Right-wing county, for escorting pro-migrant protestors to the Bell, stating that he opposes any notion of two-tier justice or treating one side of the debate better than the other. He would express his distaste at the booking of a four star hotel in Canary Wharf to house migrants, and demand cheaper pop-up sites be found. In the real world, we must make do with Starmer's platitudes and untruths. Why did his social media account claim that 'we will stop at nothing to tackle illegal migration' when that is the very opposite of what Labour is doing? Starmer refuses to pull levers that might work: his priority is not stopping the boats but maintaining the human rights orthodoxy at any cost. Yes, Starmer would love it were something to turn up and immigration, legal and illegal, were to drop – he may even get his way if Rachel Reeves bankrupts Britain – but he has no desire to pro-actively do anything radical about it. The PM refuses to pull out of the ECHR or of the UN Refugee conventions, he is wedded to the obsolete principal of non-refoulement and he scrapped the Rwanda scheme. He won't consider jailing illegal arrivals. He will never take truly drastic action towards the people traffickers. This newspaper revealed last week that a High Court judge, in a case brought against the Foreign Office by an Afghan living in the UK seeking to bring relatives to Britain, that 'family members' did not have to have a 'blood or legal connection' to the applicant. Down that road lies madness. Starmer's ludicrous, ECHR compliant plan for a ' thousands in, fifty out' pilot plan with France won't work, if it is ever signed off by the EU. He tells people smugglers he 'will destroy your business model, piece by piece', at the very time they drop off yet more boatloads. His idea to crack down on illicit activity is to 'share asylum accommodation locations' with food delivery services 'so they can take action if riders are staying there.' Downing Street officials believe that Britain's social fabric is 'fraying at the edges', and yet the best the Government can do is to demand greater integration and the restoration of trust, as if that were easy. Laughably, the Prime Minister reportedly believes that his policy to improve school attendance is already improving community relations. None of this is even close to being commensurate to the scale of the crisis. In The Vision of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a basis for social policy, Thomas Sowell, the African-American economist, explained why politicians like Starmer lose touch with reality and end up despising their electorates. Sowell, who to her credit Kemi Badenoch often cites approvingly, divides the world into groups: the anointed elites, those we now call the woke Blob, ego-crazed idiot-savants who believe that simplistic social engineering can solve all of the world's problems, and followers of the 'tragic vision', who have the humility to understand the complexities and trade-offs inherent to human societies. The anointed include Labour, the Corbynites/Greens, Lib Dems and the many wet Tories. Followers of the 'tragic vision' include Reform, sensible Tories (including Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick and Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the 53 per cent of the public who tell YouGov that immigration is one of the most important issues facing Britain. The anointed are sure they know best, and don't react well when their grand schemes to 'save humanity' – the ECHR, the Human Rights Act or open borders – go wrong. Much of this is narcissism: these elites don't care as much about the downtrodden as they do about feeling good about themselves. The anointed, Sowell explained, operate by picking a 'mascot', a marginalised group, to champion, such as small boat migrants, while simultaneously demonising a 'target', such as ordinary 'normies' who believe immigration has gone too far. The anointed are above all dogmatic. Their beliefs are not susceptible to auto-correction, to Popperian falsification, to feedback from reality: they simply dismiss all contrary empirical evidence. They consider themselves to be well-intentioned and morally superior, so any criticism of their axioms must be dismissed as false consciousness, prima facie evidence of racism. So deranged, so deluded are these elites that they cannot conceive that their critics could genuinely, for non-xenophobic reasons, worry about filling hotels in residential areas with young men with no passports and no real known identity, and the risk this could pose to young girls. They can't accept that voters might genuinely be affected by housing and public services shortages exacerbated by mass migration (in a world of sluggish supply), and not be merely driven by prejudice. They cannot understand that putting up migrants in costly hotels, at a time when taxes are at record highs, is insulting to millions. They fail to comprehend why, in this context, the fact that a school banned a 12-year old girl from wearing a Union Flag dress on Culture Celebration Day, could be considered a provocation. Starmer and Labour will never change, and neither will the rest of the anointed class. The only answer is to replace them. I have a feeling that the next election will be called sooner than many believe.
The Guardian
7 minutes ago
- The Guardian
M&S advert banned for featuring model who looked ‘unhealthily thin'
An advert by high street retailer Marks & Spencer has been banned for featuring an 'irresponsible' image of a model who appeared 'unhealthily thin'. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the model's pose, choice of clothing and the camera angle which seemed to tilt downwards all contributed to the impression she was too thin. The picture, which appeared on the M&S app, featured a model wearing slim-fit black trousers and a white off-the-shoulder top, where some of her upper torso can be seen. She faced the camera with one hand in her pocket and the other holding a bag. The advertising watchdog described the model's collarbones as 'very prominent'. It added that the model wore 'large pointed shoes which emphasised the slenderness of her legs' and: 'In part due to the camera angle which appeared tilted downwards, the model's head appeared out of proportion with the rest of her body and further highlighted her small frame.' M&S argued in its submission to the ASA that its 'inclusive women's wear clothing' represented sizes eight to 24. However, it acknowledged that the models in the ads were size eight, and therefore at the lower end of its sizing range. The retailer said it 'took concerns about the depiction of body image in their ads very seriously' and added that 'all models were in good health', and that they 'complied with industry standards and best practices to avoid promoting unhealthy body images'. The ASA ruled that the advert must not appear again in its current form and M&S must ensure all its images 'did not portray models as being unhealthily thin'. M&S confirmed that the images have been removed. The ASA said it also received complaints about three other adverts on the M&S app, website and in an email for the company, where two models wear a pink polka dot dress. In its investigation, it said the model's face 'did not look gaunt', adding that 'while thin, her arms and the leg visible in the shot, did not display any protruding bones'. 'The model appeared in proportion and we considered that she was not presented as unhealthily thin overall,' the ruling concluded. The other images in the ad, which featured another model, also 'showed the model in proportion. We also considered that the model did not appear unhealthily thin in those shots.' The ruling comes amid concerns that the fashion industry is reversing progress made in the body positivity movement in the 2010s due to a recent trend towards skinnier models. Earlier this year, the ASA banned a Next advert for featuring what it deemed an 'unhealthily thin' model in digitally altered clothing. In 2023, it banned Warehouse from using an image of a model in an oversized biker jacket, saying the model's pronounced collar bone, hip bones and torso gave the appearance of her being 'very thin', which made the ad 'irresponsible'. M&S has been contacted for comment.
