‘Certain inevitability' to Grangemouth closure when Labour won power
But he said the plant was 'far too far down the line' for the outcome to have been averted.
The plant ceased crude oil processing in April, with its closure causing the loss of 430 jobs.
Grangemouth stopped producing oil earlier this year (Andrew Milligan/PA)
The SNP had previously called for the UK Government to nationalise the site, which its owners said was losing £385,000 a day.
Appearing before the Scottish Affairs Committee in the Commons on Wednesday, Mr Shanks, who is the MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, said the Government is 'not in the business of nationalising failing businesses'.
However, he also described Grangemouth currently as a 'hugely investable opportunity' for businesses.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer previously announced £200 million in funding for the future of the site, cash which he hopes to triple in private investment.
That came after the Scottish Government had announced £25 million in funding, while both governments funded Project Willow – a £1.5 million report into future options to keep the plant open.
We're questioning Energy Minister @MGShanks on the future of North Sea energy as part of our inquiry into GB Energy and the net zero transition.
Watch live ⬇️
— Scottish Affairs Committee (@CommonsScotAffs) July 2, 2025
Asked about whether the UK Government considered bringing Grangemouth into public ownership, Mr Shanks told MPs: 'I think it is fair to say we didn't take any option off the table and we did look at a whole series of options.
'But firstly, the Government's not in the business of nationalising failing businesses.
'That is difficult to say, but it is the reality that a business that's losing tens of millions of pounds, it can't be nationalised with the public facing the cost of that.
'That's the same position we're in with the Prax Lindsey refinery (North Lincolnshire), and it's the same position with Grangemouth.'
Mr Shanks said Labour 'moved every possible option forward' to do what it could to save the refinery, but added: 'The truth is, we were far too far down the line with the Grangemouth process to really change the outcome and as regrettable as that is, and it genuinely is, and I've met the workers on a number of occasions, I know how significant the impact is on them and their families, there was a certain inevitability about the outcome by the point in which we came into Government.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
23 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Judgment due in Palestine Action court bid for temporary block on terror ban
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, is asking the court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is to come into force at midnight after being approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week, and would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The Home Office is opposing bids to delay the ban from becoming law, and the potential launch of a legal challenge against the decision. Protesters outside the Royal Courts of Justice in central London (Lucy North/PA) At the end of a hearing on Friday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said he 'realistically' planned to give his decision after 5.30pm. Lawyers for Ms Ammori said that if the temporary block was not granted, a bid to appeal against that decision could be made on Friday evening. During the hearing, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, told the London court that this would be the first time a 'direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists'. He added that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'. Quoting Ms Ammori, the barrister said that the group had 'never encouraged harm to any person at all' and that its goal 'is to put ourselves in the way of the military machine'. He continued: 'We ask you, in the first instance, to suspend until July 21 what we say is an ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power which is alien to the basic tradition of the common law and is contrary to the Human Rights Act.' The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Mr Husain later said that to proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary 'has got to believe that the organisation is concerned in terrorism'. Demonstrators banged drums outside the court (Lucy North/PA) Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. The barrister named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action. 'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?' 'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ni Ghralaigh asked. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action. The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7 million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Four people were charged in connection with the incident.
Western Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
High Court judge refuses to temporarily block Palestine Action terror ban
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is set to come into force at midnight after a High Court judge refused Ms Ammori's bid for a temporary block. Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Lawyers for Ms Ammori were also refused permission to appeal and were told to go to the Court of Appeal itself. The proposal was approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week and would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action. Protesters gathered outside the central London court on Friday (Lucy North/PA) At a hearing on Friday, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, asked the court to suspend the 'ill-considered' and 'authoritarian abuse of statutory power' until a hearing due around July 21. Mr Husain told the London court: 'This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists.' The barrister said that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'. The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that there was no 'express provision' to protect lawyers representing her in the potential legal challenge from criminal consequences if the ban came into effect. She also said that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh later named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action. 'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?' 'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ni Ghralaigh asked. A further hearing is expected later in July (Lucy North/PA) Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action. The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7 million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Four people were charged in connection with the incident.
The National
44 minutes ago
- The National
Being a journalist at Westminster is all about right place, right time
SOMETIMES you nearly miss the story. During this week's lengthy debate on the welfare bill, I decided that I'd take a break to stretch my legs, get a bit of fresh air and smoke a cigarette. There had been reports that Social Security Minister Stephen Timms was going to scrap much of the welfare bill, which we'd covered in our live blog already. Ministers speak at the beginning and end of debates and the bill was due to go to a vote at around 7pm, so I was expecting Timms to reveal this then. Just before 5.30pm, I got up from my desk, had a fag, had a bit of a natter with two MPs and returned to my desk. Timms (below) had, in my absence, made an intervention in the debate and announced from the despatch box that he was gutting the Government's flagship welfare bill of its most controversial reforms. (Image: UK Parliament) I thought it was rather inconsiderate of him as I had to tear up the story I'd prepared on the cuts to Personal Independence Payments passing. Clearly, the Government had felt less confident about that prospect than I was. Timms is an old hand and seemed to take the absurdity of his position – announcing mid-debate that the bill MPs were voting on had been whittled down to a nub – in his stride. Labour backbenchers' incredulity was summed up ably by Ian Lavery, who, with dollops of Geordie gusto, denounced the Government: 'This is crazy, man! This is outrageous, man! This bill isn't fit for purpose.' The following day at Prime Minister's Questions, I took my usual spot in the press gallery. Out of habit, I sit on the side facing the opposition benches. Labour backbenchers sit below my feet and I can see the backs of the frontbenchers' heads. It was, from where I was sitting (and I use the phrase advisedly), an exceptionally dull PMQs. (Image: House of Commons/PA Wire) After around 20 tedious minutes, the woman sitting beside me gave me an elbow: 'Rachel Reeves is crying.' No she isn't, I thought. Then she showed me the video. We both scuttled around to the other side. She looked rough alright, but at a distance, it was hard to say anything definitively. I messaged my colleagues who quickly ascertained that she was indeed crying. In a moment indicative of my instinctively conspiratorial mind, I googled the pollen count in London that day, in case the Government tried to attribute it to hay fever. Unless she was especially sensitive to mould, thought I, there is no way they are blaming this on allergies. As it turned out, Reeves had been left shattered by the blow to her authority when her £5 billion cuts to welfare were tossed to avoid a Labour mutiny. That, coupled with a telling off from Mr Speaker, seemed to tip her over the edge. Hard to have much sympathy with her in the circumstances. Quite why she or anyone around her thought it was a good idea to have her in front of a TV camera after bursting into tears, we will never really know. But in a roundabout way, it seems to give her position greater certainty. The market reaction proved that traders fear a return to the chopping and changing which characterised the Tory years or the prospect of a more left-wing chancellor; though who that might be is quite beyond me. At dinner on Thursday night, I check my phone in a spare moment to find out that Zarah Sultana has said she is leaving Labour to lead a new left-wing party with Jeremy Corbyn. Having learned the lessons of the previous days, I hit the phones only to find that there was a reception problem affecting exclusively left-wing Labour people. Most curious. The radio silence seemed to confirm reports that Corbyn had been blindsided by the announcement. The moral of the story? Inconclusive, I'm afraid. I don't think any valuable lessons can be taken from the events of this week ... other than being in the right place at the right time. You can get the Worst of Westminster delivered straight to your email inbox every Friday at 6pm for FREE by clicking here.
