Critics have slammed Ed Miliband's net zero policies after major UK oil refinery went bust
State Oil, which owns Prax Group and Lindsey refinery in North Lincolnshire, appointed administrators on Monday, with a winding-up order also issued against the refinery and related businesses.
More than 180 people work for State Oil, while Lindsey employs around 440 staff.
The site, built in 1968, processes 113,000 barrels of oil a day and is one of just five major refineries left in the UK after Scotland's Grangemouth refinery shut down weeks ago.
Industry insiders say Miliband's push to ban new North Sea oil licences has left the UK increasingly reliant on imported fuel, as renewables fail to meet demand.
Imported fuel doesn't require refining, leaving Britain's refineries struggling to survive.
Trade union Unite has demanded urgent government action to protect workers and fuel supplies, warning that the collapse leaves the UK on a 'cliff edge.'
General secretary Sharon Graham said: 'Unite has constantly warned the Government that its policies have placed the oil and gas industry on a cliff edge.
'It has failed to act and instead put its fingers in its ears.
'The Government needs a short-term strategy to keep Lindsey operating and a sustainable long-term plan to fully protect all oil and gas workers.'
However, Energy Minister Michael Shanks called the collapse 'deeply concerning' and pledged to investigate the directors' conduct.
He said: 'There have been longstanding issues with this company and workers have been badly let down.'
Keir Starmer's deranged drive for Net Zero with eco-zealot Ed Miliband is a threat to UK's national security- here's why
Miliband is reportedly considering electricity bill discounts for refineries to boost production.
Prax, led by Sanjeev Kumar Soosaipillai, bought Lindsey from TotalEnergies in 2021 for around $168million,
Teneo's joint administrators confirmed that Lindsey staff are still employed and receiving their wages.
Administrators said they are looking at all options, including selling Prax Group's upstream business and petrol stations, which remain unaffected by the insolvency.
1
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
36 minutes ago
- Times
The royal gravy train must be halted
The news that the royal train is to be retired to a museum by 2027 was the public relations equivalent of a tethered goat: an enticing morsel designed to distract attention from less palatable aspects of the royal finances. Faced with the royal family's booming income at a time of hardship for many Britons, officials who guard the royal image clearly decided something had to be offered up. Consigning the train's nine carriages to history was an obvious choice, a painless sacrifice. Costing some £1 million to maintain annually, it was rarely used, enjoying just two outings last year, costing £78,000. It will come as news to most taxpayers that such an extraordinary vehicle still exists, and that they have been shelling out seven figures for it to mainly languish in the sidings. But the royal financials released this week are concerning for the information they do not contain. • King Charles net worth — Sunday Times Rich List 2025 Two sets of figures were released, one relating to the monarchy as a whole, and another to the income of the Prince of Wales from the Duchy of Cornwall. In contrast to the rest of government, where balancing books is a neuralgic issue, the royal finances are in rude health. Since 2011, when David Cameron concocted a ludicrously generous funding formula for the sovereign grant, the annual payment to the monarchy, its value has soared. From £31 million in 2013 it will be £132 million in each of the next two years. Even when money for the £369 million refurbishment of Buckingham Palace is subtracted there will still be tens of millions left to fund royal operations. The sovereign grant formula is bizarre. Some 260 years ago, George III surrendered the earnings from the crown's hereditary lands in return for a stipend. Those assets became the Crown Estate which, despite its name, has nothing to do with the monarchy. Under the Cameron arrangement the grant is calculated at 10 per cent of Crown Estate profits, with a 2 per cent temporary uplift for the palace works. Licence earnings for offshore wind farms on the estate-owned seabed have seen profits rocket to over £1 billion. This is a temporary boost for the estate but not for the royals. The 2011 agreement includes a 'gold ratchet' that means the grant can stay the same or go up, but not fall. Together with his £27 million income from the Duchy of Lancaster the King is well provided for. Even though the palace knows the Crown Estate is a national, not a royal, asset it persists with the fiction that it is. Supposedly, its surrender in the 18th century is still providing a net gain for the public. A spokesman said this week: 'The sum surrendered by the King is far greater than the sum returned as the sovereign grant, and thus there is no additional burden on taxpayers.' To this fantasy is added the secrecy of Prince William over the tax he pays on income from the Duchy of Cornwall. Once public, the amount is now simply described as the 'highest rate'. The duchy is a 'private estate with a commercial imperative'. That means a company, surely? Yet it pays no corporation tax or CGT. It also makes charities, schools and the NHS pay for using premises. William's desire to be a champion for the underprivileged is undermined by this profiteering. Just like the Crown Estate, the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are national assets, not 'private' ones. It is time for the government to consolidate all three into a National Estate and pay working royals simple stipends while maintaining royal infrastructure. The gravy train must end.
Reuters
38 minutes ago
- Reuters
Starmer wins vote on UK welfare reform but suffers damaging rebellion
LONDON, July 1 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer won a vote on his welfare plans on Tuesday at significant political cost as he suffered the biggest parliamentary rebellion of his premiership and was forced to back down on key parts of the package. After his lawmakers pushed him into a series of embarrassing U-turns to sharply scale back plans to cut benefits, lawmakers in the House of Commons gave their initial approval to a package of measures Starmer says are vital to securing the future of the welfare system. But the scale of the rebellion - with 49 Labour lawmakers voting against the reforms - underlined the prime minister's waning authority. A year after winning one of the largest parliamentary majorities in British history, Starmer has seen his personal approval ratings collapse and been forced into several policy reversals by his increasingly rebellious lawmakers. "It's been a bumpy time tonight," work and pensions minister Liz Kendall told reporters after a session of parliament when lawmakers took turns to mostly criticise the planned changes. "There are definitely lessons to learn from this process." Starmer came into office last year promising his big parliamentary majority would bring an end to the political chaos that defined much of the Conservative Party's 14 years in power. But the revolt over the welfare bill underlines the difficulty he has pushing through unpopular changes. In the run-up to the vote, ministers and party enforcers known as "whips" had been locked in frantic last-ditch lobbying of undecided members of parliament to try to win their backing. In a further concession to rebels about two hours before the vote, the government said it would not finalise changes in eligibility for a key benefit payment until a review into the welfare system had been completed. Paula Barker, a Labour member of parliament, called the attempt to pass the plans "the most unedifying spectacle that I have ever seen". In the end, the government suffered by far the biggest rebellion of Starmer's premiership, eclipsing the 16 members of parliament who opposed an infrastructure bill earlier this month. Mel Stride, the opposition Conservative Party finance policy chief, described Starmer's team as "a government that's lost control", only able to pass the legislation by having "ripped the heart of it out". Labour lawmaker Henry Tufnell said by agreeing to the concessions Starmer had shown "he's willing to take on board these criticisms that people have raised." Almost 90 disability and human rights groups before the vote urged lawmakers to vote down the legislation. The proposed reforms are designed to reduce the cost of Britain's growing welfare bill, which the government has described as economically indefensible and morally wrong. Annual spending on incapacity and disability benefits already exceeds the country's defence budget and is set to top 100 billion pounds ($137 billion) by 2030, according to official forecasts, up from 65 billion pounds now. More than half of the rise in working-age disability claims since the COVID-19 pandemic relates to mental health conditions, opens new tab, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank. The government had initially hoped to save 5 billion pounds ($6.9 billion) a year by 2030 by tightening rules for people to receive disability and sickness benefits. But after the government conceded to pressure from its lawmakers, it said the new rules would now apply only to future applicants, not to the millions of existing claimants as had been proposed. Analysts estimated the savings would likely be closer to 2 billion pounds. It was not clear how the additional last-minute change would impact the hoped-for savings in the welfare reform package. Opposition politicians said the government would now have to raise taxes or cut government spending elsewhere to balance the public finances in the annual budget later this year. The government has said there would be no permanent increase in borrowing, but has declined to comment on possible tax rises. While Starmer is under no immediate threat, and the next election is not expected until 2029, his party now trails behind Nigel Farage's populist Reform UK in opinion polls. John Curtice, Britain's most respected pollster, said this week that Starmer was the most unpopular elected prime minister in modern British history, and that voters still did not know what he stood for a year after he was elected.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Why govt's promise of 'biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation' may be overblown
Angela Rayner is set to announce plans to build 180,000 new social homes in the next decade, as the government seeks to "turn the tide on the housing crisis". It would be six times greater than the number of social homes built in the 10 years up to 2024 - and forms part of a drive to build 300,000 new social and affordable properties by 2035. The plan is backed by a £39bn investment announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in last month's spending review. 2:29 The deputy prime minister called on the social housing sector to "work together to turn the tide of the housing crisis", and said the investment was "the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation". "We are seizing this golden opportunity with both hands to transform this country by building the social and affordable homes we need, so we create a brighter future where families aren't trapped in temporary accommodation and young people are no longer locked out of a secure home," she said. Ms Rayner's target for social and affordable housing is part of a wider long-term plan - also due to be published on Wednesday - setting out how the government will build both more houses and improve housing standards. Here, Sky News looks at what the plan will mean for the country, how it compares to previous programmes, and how it could be affected by the increased cost of construction. 3:17 Crunching the numbers The £39bn 10-year Affordable Homes Programme is an ambitious investment in affordable housing, representing a real terms increase from the previous programme of over £1bn annually. However, claims of the "biggest boost in a generation" may be slightly overblown. When factoring in inflation, the annual investment of £3.9bn falls short of the equivalent £4.5bn annually from 2008 to 2011 under the previous Labour government. This was however a notably short-term uplift, and the sector will welcome the stability of the new settlement which secures funding for 10 years - compared with five years or fewer under previous programmes. The programme sets out to deliver 30,000 affordable homes per year on average, with at least 18,000 of those being for social rent, rather than other tenures such as shared ownership. This would be more than twice the number under the previous programme, which is estimated to have delivered about 8,000 homes annually for social rent by its completion. Similarly, however, it is fewer than were delivered by the previous Labour Affordable Homes Programme, which was over 30,000 a year from 2008 to 2011. A further challenge to the government's goal of a "generational" uplift is the increasing cost of building, meaning they may face diminishing returns on their investment. The previous Affordable Homes Programme initially aimed to deliver 180,000 homes, which was revised down significantly to between 110,000 and 130,000 due to increasing costs and delays. This government can expect to face a similar economic landscape, particularly with an ambition to deliver a greater share of socially rented homes - the most expensive type of affordable housing to build.
