Government demands investigation after Lindsey oil refinery owner collapses
A separate winding-up order has also been made against the Lindsey oil refinery and related businesses and a liquidator has been appointed.
More than 180 staff are employed by State Oil, while it is thought that around another 420 work at the Lindsey refinery.
Energy minister Michael Shanks called on the company's owner to 'put his hands in his pockets and deliver proper compensation for the workers'.
He said the Government is demanding an investigation into the conduct of the company's directors and the circumstances surrounding its failure.
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.
Mr Shanks vowed to 'ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security' and said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband 'is today writing to the Insolvency Service to demand an immediate investigation into the conduct of the directors and the circumstances surrounding this insolvency'.
He later told the Commons: 'The Government believes the business's leadership have a responsibility to the workers and the local community, and we are calling on them to do the right thing and provide support to the workers through this difficult period.
'The wealthy owner cannot wash his hands of his obligations to the workers and their families, and that's why we are calling on him to put his hands in his pockets and deliver proper compensation for the workers.'
Mr Shanks added the Government was told about commercial difficulties 'at the end of April', with the refinery having 'recorded a total of around £75 million worth of losses between its acquisition in 2021 and the financial year ending in February 2024'.
He said: 'The Secretary of State was reassured by the company that there was no immediate closure risk to the refinery. A week ago, the business changed their position and said they feared it could no longer be a going concern.
'We repeatedly asked them at official and ministerial level what the financial gap was, to work out whether the Government could help bridge that gap, but the company were unable to share that basic information.'
Trade union Unite said the Government needed to urgently intervene to help protect UK fuel supplies and jobs.
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: 'The Lindsey oil refinery is strategically important and the Government must intervene immediately to protect workers and fuel supplies.
'Unite has constantly warned the Government that its policies have placed the oil and gas industry on a cliff edge.'
Built in 1968, the Lindsey refinery can process around 113,000 barrels of oil a day.
Clare Boardman, joint administrator of State Oil and Prax, said: 'We appreciate that this is a very difficult and uncertain time for the employees and everyone involved and we will be on site to support them during this challenging period.
'We will be considering all options for the group, including the prospect of a sale for the group's upstream business and retail operations in the UK and Europe, all of which remain outside of insolvency.
'We thank the group's team members and other stakeholders for their continued support.'
Prax Group was not immediately available for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
The welfare reform vote: All you need to know
Below, the PA news agency looks at what happened, what it means for personal independence payment (Pip) and universal credit, and what might come next. – What have MPs agreed to? MPs voted on Tuesday to allow the Government's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill to advance to the next stage in becoming law. Some 126 Labour backbenchers had previously threatened to vote against the legislation, enough to block its passage through the Commons, but in the end only 49 did so. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer could face a political headache as he seeks to repair fractured relations with his backbenchers (Carl Court/PA) But ministers were forced to offer a series of concessions to persuade the rebels to back the Government. – What concessions did the Government make? Last week, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced a partial U-turn aimed at heading off the rebellion that included three key points. Firstly, changes to Pip eligibility would only come into effect in November 2026, and anyone claiming the benefit before that date would not be subject to the new rules, instead of imposing the changes on everyone. Secondly, people claiming the health element of universal credit, and new claimants with the most severe conditions, would see their incomes protected in real terms. Thirdly, disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms would conduct a review of the Pip assessment, 'co-produced' with disabled people. Sir Stephen Timms offered a further concession in the middle of the debate on the legislation on Tuesday (Jonathan Brady/PA) But during Tuesday's debate, Sir Stephen offered a further concession, saying any changes to Pip eligibility would only be introduced after his review had concluded, further delaying them. – What do the concessions mean for the Government's proposals? The decision to push back Pip changes to an unspecified date, and leave uncertain the details of what those changes will be, removes a major part of the Government's reform plans. The proposed changes to universal credit remain, raising the standard allowance while halving the health element for most new claimants from April 2026. But the concessions will also pose a problem for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who will need to find extra money now the expected savings from welfare reform are no longer expected to materialise. Indeed, the Resolution Foundation think tank suggested the concessions meant there would now be no 'net savings' from the reform by 2029/30, a key year for Ms Reeves' fiscal targets. – What happens next? The Government has pledged to make the necessary amendments to remove the Pip changes from the Bill when it returns to the Commons next week. The concessions pose a problem for Chancellor Rachel Reeves (James Manning/PA) It is then likely to continue through Parliament, becoming law after it has been approved by both MPs and peers. But wider questions remain for the Government. Not only does Ms Reeves face a fiscal headache, but the Prime Minister could face a political one too as he seeks to repair fractured relations with his backbenchers. And uncertainty will continue to surround the Government's plans for welfare reform. Ministers will still want to reduce the cost of the welfare bill and get more people back into work, while Sir Stephen's Pip review could result in another row depending on what it recommends.
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
Petro Poroshenko: ‘What Zelensky is doing is no different from Russia'
President Zelensky is seeking to 'remove any competitor from the political landscape' and rule Ukraine with an iron fist, a former president has said. Petro Poroshenko, a political rival to Zelensky, accused him of 'authoritarianism' after the government sanctioned him this year, potentially preventing him from standing in an election. 'Why is he doing this? Because he hates me on a biological, chemical level,' Poroshenko said in an interview with The Times. 'And, frankly speaking, I also do not like Zelensky. But never during the war have I done anything that is hostile towards him. 'I am an elected person. I have the second-biggest faction in parliament. And he thinks that he has the power not to allow me to go to the parliamentary assembly? … You are simply violating the constitution. And there is absolutely no difference [in what he is doing] from Russia.' • Zelensky's rivals plot path to Ukraine presidency Although the Kremlin's autocratic hold over Russian society is a far cry from Ukraine's diverse and rambunctious political system, there are growing concerns about the concentration of power around Zelensky, which his supporters say is a consequence of the situation the country finds itself in. Poroshenko, who was president from 2014 to 2019, insisted that he did not wish to criticise Zelensky but merely to offer him advice. It is difficult, however, to distinguish between the two as the former president enumerates the 'very bad mistakes' made by his successor — the 'catastrophe' of the Oval Office meeting with President Trump in March, for example, or the creeping 'authoritarianism' of Zelensky's rule that he says threatens to undermine democracy. 'Learn from the experience of Bibi,' Poroshenko urged, referring to Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, who successfully persuaded Trump to take part last month in strikes against Iran's nuclear programme. Zelensky, by contrast, has struggled to maintain the mercurial US leader's support in bringing an end to the war with Russia, which Poroshenko believes is down to a lack of clear objectives in Ukraine's negotiations with the White House and its inability to handle Trump's desire for praise. Netanyahu, he suggests, won Trump's support in Iran after only allowing him to take the credit for negotiating a brief ceasefire in Gaza. There is little love lost between the fifth and sixth presidents of Ukraine. A lasting animosity was engendered on the 2019 election campaign trail, during which the pair traded barbs in a series of increasingly irate debates. Zelensky, a man whose political experience had hitherto consisted of playing a fictional president in a television programme, went on to win the election resoundingly. On the morning of February 24, 2022, however, as Russian tanks rumbled across the Ukrainian border, the two foes met in Kyiv and made a truce. Three years on, that alliance has fractured. In February, the government imposed sanctions on Poroshenko, preventing him from accessing his bank accounts, travelling abroad or attending parliamentary sessions. State security services said that the sanctions were based on allegations of threats to national security, which Poroshenko denies. Having largely refrained from criticising the government since the invasion, now he is speaking out to tell Zelensky: 'I am not your enemy.' 'I am shoulder to shoulder with you,' he said. 'Not because I don't have any complaints against you — that [will come] later on, after the end of the war. But now unity is the key factor for our success.' Poroshenko, 59, who is worth $1.8 billion according to Forbes, made a fortune from chocolate before entering politics. Elected in 2014 after the Maidan revolution that ousted his pro-Kremlin predecessor, he is widely credited with rebuilding the Ukrainian armed forces after the annexation of Crimea and onset of the war in Donbas. Hanging on the wall of his office — alongside Ukrainian military regalia and a painting of Putin in handcuffs — is a memento of another of his successes in office: a certificate, signed in 2018 by Mike Pompeo, then Trump's secretary of state, vowing that the US would not recognise Russia's claim to Crimea. It is diplomatic coups such as this, as well as his success in convincing Trump in 2017 to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons, that Poroshenko believes give him some authority in his criticisms of Zelensky's dealings with the American president. There is, he claims, a 'serious communication problem' between the two diplomatic teams, at the heart of which is the Americans' distrust of Andriy Yermak, chief of staff to Zelensky, and Oksana Markarova, the ambassador to Washington, who angered the Republicans before the American election by organising an event to which only Democrats were invited. The result was the disastrous meeting in the Oval Office, when Trump and JD Vance, Trump's vice-president, berated the Ukrainian leader before the world in a meeting that Zelensky had not been adequately prepared for, Poroshenko said. However, Trump said that a meeting with Zelensky at the Nato summit last week 'couldn't have been nicer'. Poroshenko has sought to make connections with Trump's team directly, last visiting Washington in February, when he met US officials and attended the National Prayer Breakfast, at which Trump made a speech. Sanctions now prevent him from travelling abroad, and also hamper his support for the Ukrainian military, to which he says he has donated $200 million in the past three years. According to Poroshenko, the purpose of the sanctions is to prevent him from running in a presidential election, a possibility that has been raised for this year during talks of ceasefire. • Fall guy: Trump's Russia deal is aimed at ousting Zelensky An election had been due last year, but has been delayed under martial law imposed in 2022. Because of the logistics of holding an election in wartime, most people oppose the idea — Poroshenko among them. But he believes that his sanctioning is evidence of the government's preparation for a vote for which it is seeking to clear the field and allow Zelensky to run virtually unopposed — a claim the president's team denies. Even if Poroshenko does stand, his odds of a victory are long. Many Ukrainians are yet to forgive the corruption and economic stagnation that marred his time in office, and polling consistently shows the former president in third place, roughly 20 points behind Zelensky and General Valerii Zaluzhny, the former top military commander who is now serving as ambassador to Britain. The general's war record has won him admiration in Ukraine, but he has shown no interest in standing for election. In any case, Poroshenko says, his sanctioning should be a warning to every potential candidate. 'Today Poroshenko, tomorrow Zaluzhny, [the] day after tomorrow anybody,' he said. 'This is authoritarianism.' For all that Poroshenko wishes to present himself as a figure of unity in a time of national crisis, rising illiberalism is a charge he is willing to give full throat to, citing clampdowns on the freedom of press and of public activists, and pressure on businesses. In this, he runs the risk of playing into the hands of both the Kremlin and US isolationists, who have used the postponement of elections to attack Zelensky. Among those who agree with Poroshenko is Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv and a former world champion boxer, whose hulking frame arrived through the door of Poroshenko's office as The Times was leaving. Klitschko, who is said to harbour presidential ambitions of his own, has also criticised Zelensky for a series of recent police raids at his mayoral office and investigations into his staff. 'I said once that it smells of authoritarianism in our country,' he told The Times in May. 'Now it stinks.' Asked whether he and Klitschko were working together in preparation for a presidential campaign, Poroshenko said that they were not but added portentously that more and more people were becoming critical of the president's conduct. 'Zelensky should listen to that, because if you are closed from the people that can have the effect of a steaming pot,' he said. Whether it will boil over remains to be seen.
Rhyl Journal
30 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Starmer ditches Pip benefit reforms in face of Labour revolt
In a late climbdown as MPs prepared to vote, the Government shelved plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), with any changes now only coming after a review of the benefit. The move will cause a headache for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has seen a forecast £4.8 billion saving from the welfare budget whittled away through a series of concessions, leaving her to seek extra money through spending cuts, tax hikes or borrowing to balance the books. The Resolution Foundation's chief executive Ruth Curtice said the concessions meant the reforms would now make no 'net savings' in 2029/30 – a key year for Ms Reeves's fiscal targets – even if they did reduce costs in the longer term. The decision to remove the Pip changes from the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was announced just 90 minutes before MPs voted on Tuesday night. The legislation cleared its first hurdle by 335 votes to 260, majority 75. Despite the late concession, there were 49 Labour rebels, the largest revolt so far of Sir Keir's premiership. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall insisted the Labour Party was '100%' behind the Prime Minister, but acknowledged there were 'lessons to be learned' after the rebellion. She also appeared to express regret over the handling of the issue, saying: 'I wish we had got to this point in a different way.' But Ms Kendall also insisted it was 'really important we passed this Bill', saying: 'We need to make changes, because too many people have been written off, are left to a life on benefits, when being in good work is so important.' The decision to remove key parts of the Bill is remarkable for a Government with a working majority of 165 and after just under a year in office. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused ministers of 'utter capitulation' and said the legislation was now 'pointless'. She said: 'They should bin it, do their homework, and come back with something serious. Starmer cannot govern.' Earlier, a Labour rebel attempt to halt the legislation was defeated by 179 votes. A total of 44 Labour MPs including two tellers backed the bid by rebel ringleader Rachael Maskell, who described the Bill as 'unravelling' and 'a complete farce'. A previous effort to kill the Bill had attracted more than 120 Labour supporters, but was dropped after the first partial U-turn on the legislation last week, which restricted the Pip changes to new claimants from November 2026. That date has now been abandoned in the latest climbdown, with any changes now only coming after disability minister Sir Stephen Timms' review of the Pip assessment process. Sir Stephen announced the climbdown in the middle of the debate on the legislation. He acknowledged 'concerns that the changes to Pip are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading'. He said the Government would now 'only make changes to Pip eligibility activities and descriptors following that review', which is due to conclude in the autumn of 2026. The concession came after frantic behind-the-scenes negotiations in Westminster involving the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and wavering Labour MPs. Charlotte Gill, head of campaigns and public affairs at the MS Society, said: 'We thought last week's so-called concessions were last minute. But these panicked 11th hour changes still don't fix a rushed, poorly thought-out Bill.' But Jon Sparkes, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: 'The last-minute change relating to the review Sir Stephen Timms is leading sounds positive and we are pleased that the Government has listened.' He added: 'Disabled people should not have to pay to fix black holes in the public finances.' The Government's concessions have gutted the reforms, leaving only parts of the current Bill still on the table. Proposals to cut the health element of universal credit by almost 50% for most new claimants from April 2026 remain in place, along with an above-inflation increase in the benefit's standard allowance. In an earlier climbdown, Work and Pensions Secretary Ms Kendall said existing recipients of the health element of universal credit, and new claimants with the most severe conditions, would have their incomes 'fully protected in real terms'.
