Government demands investigation after Lindsey oil refinery owner collapses
State Oil – the parent company of Prax Group, which owns the Lindsey refinery in North Lincolnshire – appointed administrators on Monday.
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
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour could make paternity leave a ‘day-one right'
Angela Rayner has announced a full review of parental leave policies that could see more paternity leave enshrined in law. Ministers believe the current rules, which allow women to take 39 weeks of leave on reduced pay and men to take two weeks, may be holding back productivity. Meanwhile, the Department of Business and Trade, which is carrying out the 18-month review into parental leave, will explore making paternity leave and unpaid parental leave a 'day one right' for employees. One in three new fathers do not take up paternity leave, while the uptake of shared parental leave, when the period of absence can be shared between a couple, is low. The Government could also change the rules to allow paternity leave to be taken after a period of shared parental leave, which is not currently permitted. Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, said: 'Those early years are the most special time for families, but too many struggle to balance their work and home lives. 'Supporting working parents isn't just the right thing to do – it's vital for our economy. 'Through our Plan to Make Work Pay, we're already improving the parental leave system with new day 1 rights. This ambitious review will leave no stone unturned as we deliver for working families.' 'The best chance in a generation' The review was welcomed by paternity leave campaigners, who have long argued that unequal rules for men and women can be harmful to both partners and their child. George Gabriel, co-founder of The Dad Shift, said: 'The Government's review of parental leave is the best chance in a generation to improve the system and make sure it actually works for working families. 'When the last Labour government introduced paternity leave it was groundbreaking. But that offer, unchanged since, is now the least generous in Europe. 'Our broken parental leave has been overlooked for years, and finally sorting it out would be good not only for parents and children but for businesses too.' 'Precious early years' The review comes amid warnings about the UK's productivity levels, which lag behind other rich countries. The UK's fiscal watchdog is widely expected to downgrade Britain's productivity forecast this summer. Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, who is facing a backlash to her welfare reforms among Labour MPs, said changes to the rules would be appreciated by parents and businesses. 'Every parent should have the chance to spend time with their children during those precious early years,' she said. 'This review delivers on our Plan for Change to support families and give children the best start in life. 'By listening to parents and employers across the country, we'll build a system that works for today's working families.'
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why Labour's plan to expose everyone's pay is bad news
When Pimlico Plumbers' staff revealed their salaries to each other for a reality TV show in 2012, it turned things upside had assumed people doing the same jobs would be paid the same, but that wasn't the case at all. The exercise revealed pay discrepancies of up to £9,000. To restore order, managing director Charlie Mullins had to reluctantly agree to foot the bill for pay rises. 'It cost me a few quid once people found out what their colleagues were making. I had to put more money into the wages pot, and we did uncover some huge pay differences between people doing similar jobs. There was even a spectacular resignation from one guy who didn't get a pay rise,' recalls Mullins, who sold the business in 2021 and launched home repairs service WeFix last year. This social experiment may be about to take place in workplaces across Britain. Labour may force employers to publish salary bands, and make pay information available to employees. The idea is that by requiring employers to be more open about pay structures, salary ranges, and progression criteria, it becomes easier to identify and correct inequalities where people are doing the same or similar jobs. But this could have side effects, experts suggest, such as forcing business owners to hand out pay rises they can't afford, sparking resentment among colleagues and even pushing down high earners' salaries. Mullins believes salary transparency laws are really about the Government 'meddling' in how businesses are run. 'I'm all for transparency,' he says. 'But this government has no clue about running a business, so they should leave well alone.' Nearly half of employers now anticipate they will have to stump up for unexpected pay rises as a result of the Government's proposed changes, with 60pc expecting more requests for pay negotiations, according to a survey by HR and financial advisory WTW. Nyree Ambarchian, who runs communications agency Jack & Grace, introduced a transparent pay system in 2022. But she hadn't anticipated that this would lead to the company paying some of its staff more. She had to offer a higher salary to a prospective employee to match her previous one, but that had a knock-on effect. 'It wasn't just that person we needed to worry about, because we already employed somebody at exactly the same level,' she adds. 'So in making that hiring decision, the real cost to us wasn't just the extra that new person was looking for, but also the uplift in an existing member's pay.' Wages getting pushed up like this is an added burden for small businesses that are already feeling a huge crunch. From April this year, employers began paying National Insurance contributions at a higher rate of 15pc, starting at a lower threshold, while the minimum wage for those aged over 21 was increased. Environmental consultancy Tyler Grange introduced a fully transparent salary structure last year for its 85 employees. As a result of the process, the company had to give out a number of additional pay rises, says managing director Jon Berry. 'It was often as an inconsequential result of someone joining us from another organisation or because we'd needed to attract a key recruit within a highly competitive market,' Berry explains. He says that introducing salary transparency cost the business around £30,000. Despite the unscheduled pay rises, Berry believes going transparent has made the recruitment process more streamlined as salary expectations are clear. Current team members know what they need to do to get promoted and what future salaries might look like. In Ambarchian's case, the agency conducts yearly reviews and has funds put aside for when unique situations arise. Mullins says of his experiment: 'At times I wished I'd never given the go-ahead for the project, but things settled down after a few weeks, and I think once everything was out in the open, the company was better for the transparency. People stopped being suspicious of how much their mate at the next desk was making.' Lost talent and lower wages Yet, having transparent salaries can cause confusion and create resentment if bosses don't properly communicate, says Justine Woolf, of Innecto Reward Consulting. For example, an employer can publicise that a role falls into a certain salary bracket, but employees don't always understand why they are paid an exact amount within the band, and are frustrated when they don't move up. 'Say the salary band for a role is £30,000 to £50,000. The market rate for your job might be £35,000, but a high performer in the same band might earn £45,000. Employers don't always clearly explain the difference. This can lead to a feeling of unfairness,' says Woolf. In the US, where 15 of its 50 states have mandated some form of salary disclosure, organisations have lost talent, and wages of some high earners have actually fallen. For example, a law in California introduced in 2010 requiring municipal salaries to be posted online led to a 7pc drop in salaries for top managers, and a 75pc increase in the resignation rate, according to the US National Bureau of Economic Research. For others it could mean their salaries increase at a slower rate. In 2006, Denmark began requiring companies to be transparent about pay bands, leading to a reduction in the gender pay gap – at the expense of salary increases for men. High performers can also be impacted when salary transparency prompts an employer to pay two people a similar rate to avoid conflict, even if one deserves more, according to a study published in Nature Human Behaviour, a journal. 'People could become demotivated if they feel, 'I've put in all that effort, and I've got very little return in terms of internal movement. Am I really valued for my contribution?'' says Woolf. 'And that's when people will start to think about going elsewhere.' Lee Holmes, chief of NFINOX Global, which has transparent salary bands, predicts that the rise of salary transparency will spotlight the disproportionate number of people in the finance industry earning unexplainably high salaries. It could see many of them jump ship to protect those large figures, rather than risk a pay cut. London-based Holmes believes that transparency shouldn't hold genuinely high performers back. Companies which set salary bands and make them known across the company should still reward people based on what they've achieved rather than what a salary band dictates, he says. He has suffered from this himself, he adds. 'I was once doing a job that encompassed four or five different roles, and when I asked for more money to reflect that, I was told that my job title was linked to a certain salary, and that was it.' He left that role not long after. Holmes' observation overall is that it is often the most vocal people who end up on higher pay, whereas those who quietly get on with their job often don't get recognised. 'I do think that once [salary transparency] comes out these people will get found out, and if they do, then great,' he says. 'It creates a better working environment for everyone else.'
Scotsman
24 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Labour's cynical attempt at concession on social security cuts
Disabled people wake up every day in fear of what the UK Government will announce next. The news that their cruel social security cuts will only affect new recipients is not a U-turn. It is a sad and cynical attempt at concession following a rebellion of Labour MPs, and it will still have a horrific impact on the lives of disabled people across the UK. Also in 2021 a BBC investigation included the case of Errol Graham who starved to death in 2018 after his benefits were stopped when he failed to attend a work capability assessment due to his ill health. Even the former Conservative welfare secretary Iain Duncan Smith resigned following the publication of a similar plan to Labour's saying that it would be 'indefensible' and that 'top slicing never works'. Following the backlash there appeared to be a deal made between Starmer and over 100 MPs who rebelled which confirmed that people already in receipt of PIP and UC will continue as normal. It will only be new claimants facing harsh eligibility assessments which will see people go without the crucial support they need. This is not good enough. How does this help people who acquire disabilities in later life? How does this help people who are disabled in accidents? Anyone can become disabled in their lifetime, and with our ageing population, more and more people will experience disability in old age. Starmer has created a two-tier benefits system. It's astonishing that a Labour Government would contemplate such cruel and inhuman cuts at all. However, we've seen over the past 11 months of Starmer in No.10 that he's nothing more than a Tory in Labour clothing. We don't know how these reforms will impact our society long term. But we do know now that disabled people are not safe, respected, or supported under Labour in Holyrood or Westminster.
