PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth - 17 December 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the agreement the Government have secured to protect vital chemical production and hundreds of jobs at the INEOS ethylene cracker in Grangemouth.

Three quarters of Grangemouth’s ethylene production is consumed domestically by our key industries, and the plant is strategically important for those industries and for UK supply chains more broadly. Its ethylene is essential for critical national infrastructure, including medical-grade plastics used in the health service, and its chemical supply chains are used for water treatment. These materials are also vital to many of our industrial strategy priority sectors, including advanced manufacturing, life sciences and defence, which all depend on a ready supply of them. The plant also links to the Forties pipeline system, which is key for transporting our North sea oil and gas to onshore infrastructure.

Despite the site’s strategic importance, we know that INEOS has faced a number of significant challenges that have had a severe impact on trading. The site, like many chemical complexes in the UK and the EU, has faced the risk of closure. Given the national importance of the plant and its unique contribution to the UK economy, the Government are clear that closure is not an outcome we are willing to accept. That is why I can confirm to the House today that we are stepping in and providing a support package to INEOS of over £120 million, which forms part of a wider £150 million investment with INEOS to help to ensure the site remains commercially viable and sustainable in the long term.

This support package comprises a grant and a Government-backed loan to protect 500 jobs in Grangemouth and many hundreds more within critical supply chains. As part of the agreement, Ineos will continue operations and will invest at least £30 million into the site, on top of the hundreds of millions it has already invested in recent years. The agreement will therefore protect jobs and safeguard taxpayers’ money.

The Government set a very high bar for interventions of this kind. We assess the viability of the business, the economic and social impacts of our investments, and the contributions of the private sector, including shareholders. Where we do intervene, we set clear and strict conditions on how those investments are used. In this case, our funding will secure ongoing operations. It will improve the site’s energy efficiency, decrease carbon emissions and increase productivity. Funding for this support will be covered by existing budgets that have been agreed as part of the departmental spending review settlements.

Interventions of this kind are rare, but when workers’ livelihoods and our strategic interests are at risk, a Labour Government will never hesitate to take action to protect this nation’s assets and economic security. We will work with businesses to build a secure, prosperous future for our industrial heartlands and for the whole of the UK. We are taking bold action today to ensure that the chemicals sector in this country remains strong for the workers and communities who have depended on it for generations. We are also ensuring that this sector can play its part in making the UK a clean energy superpower by the end of the decade. The chemicals sector plays a fundamental role in the supply of parts for wind turbines, for carbon capture and storage, and for our nuclear powerplants. We cannot afford to see those domestic supply chains disrupted, and we will not.

That is why, beyond this agreement, we will improve the business environment for British industries, including our chemicals sector. The industrial strategy is one of the ways we are doing that. Our gas prices remain competitive in Europe, but we are tackling long-standing problems with our high electricity prices. We have already pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement and chemicals. Some 550 of our most energy-intensive businesses will save up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills from next April thanks to that one change alone. Our new British industrial competitiveness scheme will reduce electricity costs for over 7,000 eligible businesses, including chemicals. We want to save them up to £40 per megawatt-hour, or 25%, from April 2027.

Supporting a skilled workforce is also at the heart of the industrial strategy. We are providing an additional £1.2 billion of investment in the skills system by 2028-29. That is because we recognise that a strong economy must rest on strong foundations. That includes our defence capability, energy security and chemicals sector. I say that because hon. Members will know that Ineos is not the only business, and Grangemouth is not the only site, to have experienced challenges over the past few years. That is why we have a vision for Grangemouth’s long-term future that is energy efficient and sustainable.

The agreement we have announced today shows that we will forge the right partnerships between industry, the UK Government and the Scottish Government to make it a reality. As part of those efforts, up to £200 million of investment from our national wealth fund will support new opportunities in Grangemouth. Several projects are already under active consideration. Backed by funding announced by the Chancellor at the Budget, the Scottish company MiAlgae has announced that it will deliver a new biotech project at the site, creating 400 well-paid green jobs.

To support workers at the nearby ExxonMobil Mossmorran plant, which will close early next year, the UK Government and the Scottish Government, alongside Fife council, are setting up a dedicated taskforce. It will ensure that employees affected by that closure will be afforded every chance of securing valuable employment. As part of the agreement being announced today, Ineos Grangemouth has committed to giving those impacted workers a guaranteed interview for available roles at its site. The Grangemouth training guarantee will also be expanded to those employees who provided shared services for the refinery, ensuring that they have the skills and qualifications they need to succeed in the local labour market.

All those measures complement the efforts being undertaken as part of the Grangemouth just transition. That is important, because the agreement we have announced today is not just about supporting a single site or a single company; it is about securing a stable industrial pipeline now and for many years to come. It is about having a clean break from the managed decline of the past and delivering the decade of national renewal that we promised for Grangemouth and for the whole UK. For those reasons, I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. The steps announced today by the Government to secure the ethylene plant at Grangemouth are welcome news, especially for the workers at the site who can now look forward to the new year, assured that their jobs will remain at the strategically vital site—and Grangemouth is vital, as the UK’s last plant producing ethylene, a key ingredient in plastics used in advanced manufacturing and the automotive and aerospace sectors. To have lost domestic production capacity for such a core product would have been unconscionable.

However, this move, welcome as it is, demonstrates just how exposed sites such as Grangemouth have become under this Government. This Government’s policies are leading to the deindustrialisation of this country, with unemployment rates soaring and the economy shrinking as a result. From potteries in Stoke to the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire and, most obviously and glaringly, our oil and gas industry in the North sea, this Government are not just overseeing but engineering the decline of energy-intensive industries in this country.

Of course, I am genuinely glad that 500 jobs at Grangemouth will be protected, but that will be cold comfort for the thousands of workers in and around the wider oil and gas industry who have already lost their jobs, or those who will spend Christmas next week not knowing whether they will have a job next year because of Labour party policy. Last week it was Harbour Energy, and before that it was the Port of Aberdeen, Apache and Petrofac. TotalEnergies has had to merge with NEO NEXT Energy to operate, while Shell has merged with Equinor.

Those businesses all say the same thing: the exorbitant taxation regime, increased and extended until 2030, is driving away investment. Couple that with the utterly astronomical cost of energy here in the UK, pushed ever higher by unnecessary green levies and carbon taxes, and it is no surprise that, in his response to today’s announcement, Sir Jim Ratcliffe said that

“high energy costs and punitive carbon”

taxes were

“driving industry out of the UK at an alarming rate. If politicians want jobs, investment and energy security, then they must create a competitive environment.”

Week after week, more jobs in the sector are lost and critical national assets shut up shop as a direct consequence of policy decisions made by this Government. Since Labour stepped into office, more than 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost—that is the scale of the crisis we are dealing with.

Great Britain has a proud manufacturing legacy, but current Government policy towards energy is squandering that legacy, damaging Scottish jobs, and damaging an important national asset.

“There are 200,000 jobs in the UK associated with oil and gas, and they are all at risk unless the government changes course.”

Those are not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but those of the chairman of Ineos at Grangemouth.

Today’s announcement is timely, however, as tomorrow I will be visiting Mossmorran to meet the team following the news that the polyethylene plant there will be closing. ExxonMobil’s chairman there has explained that he does not have two of the keys needed for success because of Government policy. He said:

“We’ve had windfall taxes, we’ve had a ban on production licences—I need cheap sources of abundant ethane, and I do not have them, because the North Sea—because of Government policy—is declining rapidly…we paid £20 million last year in CO2 taxes, that will double in the next four or five years.”

What is shocking, though, is that for some inexplicable reason the Secretary of State for Scotland chose today to attack ExxonMobil when explaining why it was not receiving the same support as Grangemouth, saying that the management

“weren’t able to give us a pathway to profitability.”

Of course they cannot do that—at every turn this Government are putting up hurdles, shutting down the North sea and taxing these businesses until they burst. Honestly, this Government just do not get it. They are not listening.

Today’s announcement does not even scratch the surface when it comes to rectifying the damage and pain that this Government have inflicted on industry in this country. Given that this is the second time this Government have launched an unprovoked attack on a leading investor in the United Kingdom, does the Minister want me to pass on an apology from the Government when I visit Mossmorran tomorrow?

Today’s announcement is welcome, but this Government could do so much more. We should scrap the energy profits levy and remove the punitive carbon taxes—we are not getting an exemption to the EU emissions trading scheme anyway, according to the EU Commission. We should incentivise, not punish. A Conservative Government will do all this and more when we return to office in three years’ time—unfortunately, those are three years I do not think British industry has.

I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman sincerely for welcoming the support for Grangemouth—it really must be the season of good will. On this occasion, I can assure him that he is correct: this is the last ethylene plant, so we can agree on that this time.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the business environment for the chemicals industry. I thought I had set that out reasonably well in my statement, but perhaps not. I shall just say a bit more. On energy costs, we already have the energy-intensive industries scheme and, as I mentioned, we have increased the level of the supercharger. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will come in in 2027 with an additional 25% reduction. He may be interested to know that our electricity costs are already more competitive than many countries in Europe, but not France and Germany, which are the benchmark for me. That is why we are introducing the British industrial competitiveness scheme. On gas, after policy costs we are already competitive. These businesses trade internationally, and our success in striking international trade deals with the EU, the US and India, and with Korea just this week, means that there are more market opportunities all the time.

The shadow Secretary of State made the contrast with ExxonMobil. I reiterate the point that this Government —the Government would always do this, as I am sure he would expect—are investing in a business with a viable and sustainable future where there is a viable business plan, primarily because the owner of the business has invested in the business over time. As I said a few weeks ago in my statement on Mossmorran, ExxonMobil had failed to invest in that plant, and that is why it said that there was a £1 billion investment gap.

On jobs, in the clean energy sector we are creating 40,000 new jobs in Scotland alone and 800,000 jobs across the whole of the country. This is a transition that the Government are actively engaging in and managing. The shadow Secretary of State says that a Conservative Government would do something different from what they did last time, but they did not do anything last time. When Ineos announced in November 2023 that it was going to close its refinery, the Conservative Prime Minister at the time said, “That’s a commercial decision.” They did nothing about it—nothing at all.

Investment in this area is very important, so I refer the shadow Secretary of State to an article that was published this morning by my noble Friend Lord Stockwood, the Minister for Investment. He talked very carefully about the international investment environment and the performance of the UK economy and lamented the fact that so many people in this country—so many Cassandras, such as the shadow Secretary of State—are constantly talking the economy down and frightening investors away. I think it is about time he recognised the success of our clean energy industries and the success of this Government’s industrial strategy and stopped talking Britain down.

I thank the Minister for his statement, I thank him and the teams across Government who have worked so hard to secure the deal to protect jobs at Grangemouth. I also want to commend all those in Government who have worked so hard to ensure that Babcock flourishes, Methil stays open, and BAE Systems secures contracts with Norway, and just last week they also secured the MiAlgae deal for the Grangemouth site too. All of that stands in stark contrast to the actions of other parties who had, or perhaps should have had, a role in these matters. Can the Minister reflect on that fact and give us some more information about what other developments we see in Grangemouth in the weeks and months ahead?

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I would also like to thank her for her engagement on these subjects as well. She rightly pointed out what a vibrant industrial community there is around the Grangemouth area. Already we have companies, such as Babcock, that are keen to recruit people in that local area and that recognise the skills of the workers who will no longer be employed at Mossmorran from February onwards. With the support that the Government have put in place, including the taskforce led by Fife council, and with the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together in concert, I am confident that we will find new jobs for those people, recognising their very high skills.

My hon. Friend mentions MiAlgae—£3 million of support was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. This great company will be operating on the Grangemouth site, directly in line with the strategy set out in Project Willow, which was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and which he spoke about at the Liaison Committee earlier this week. That points directly to the bright future for Grangemouth.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they are stepping in to offer support and protect jobs in this vital industry. We have a duty to safeguard our national security and economic prosperity, and to ensure a fair transition to clean energy. This statement is a step in that direction.

We have long been champions of British industry. We are proud of the industrial policies that we introduced in government, and we must never return to the neglect we saw under the Conservatives, who scrapped our industrial strategy. Having said that, we need to see a far more cohesive plan from this Government to support British business, including our chemicals sector.

High energy costs are a fundamental challenge. The industrial competitiveness scheme will support the 7,000 most energy-intensive firms, but it will not launch until April 2027. Will the Government confirm whether the Grangemouth plant will be included in the scheme? Do Ministers acknowledge that if the scheme had been in place earlier, the situation might have been avoided? Does the Minister agree that we need a long-term plan to slash energy costs for households and businesses alike by seriously investing in renewables and decoupling electricity from gas prices?

Finally, I must press the Minister on another huge added cost for which the Government are responsible, which is of course the national insurance increase. Will he tell the House what is the tax hit imposed on the Grangemouth plant through the national insurance hike since last year’s Budget? Is it greater than the £50 million Government grant handed to Ineos today?

I thank the hon. Member for recognising the importance of both the site and the Government’s intervention. She mentioned the £50 million grant. It is important that hon. Members look at that in the context of the total package: a grant and an investment from the owner of the business—and, as the owner of the business said today, an agreement in principle for a profit-sharing arrangement.

That points to the hon. Member’s other question about the detail of the industrial strategy. This industrial strategy is a significant break with the past. It is not about last-minute interventions, which is what the previous Conservative Government did or did not do, depending on how the mood took them. It is about a serious partnership and engagement between Government and industry to ensure that we have sustainable industry in the UK.

The hon. Member asked me about energy costs. I mentioned earlier the relative position on energy costs. Of course, we are doing more on that, and I intend to do much more. In answer to her question on whether it would have helped had the scheme been in place earlier, clearly it would have helped if there had been a Labour Government in place earlier. That would be my advice: always vote Labour.

I very much welcome the protection of 500 jobs at Grangemouth and the commitment to making the most of the energy transition through this investment in carbon capture and storage, in components for wind turbines and indeed in nuclear power plants, as the Minister mentioned in his statement. I turn to the very high electricity costs that industry faces. We have talked about this before, and I raised it with the Prime Minister on Monday at the Liaison Committee. What alternative options are available? The British industrial competitiveness scheme is a very good step in the right direction, but many businesses who will not qualify for that scheme also need help with their very high electricity prices. What is the Minister working on that will start to move the dial for those businesses as well?

I thank my hon. Friend for the close attention he gives to this area through his chairmanship of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. He started his question by mentioning the 500 jobs at Grangemouth, which perhaps we have not discussed enough. I really do understand how this announcement from the Government will bring certainty to those workers at Grangemouth as well as their families and their local community. It is incredibly important that we acknowledge that.

On energy costs, my benchmark is how competitive we are in Europe. I mentioned how our electricity costs—particularly our industrial electricity costs—are cheaper than those in some countries in Europe, such as Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, but more expensive than in France and Germany. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will take us a good way towards that, and we are already seeing the benefits of our investment in clean energy. As I have previously said at the Dispatch Box, from 2030 onwards we will see some significant reductions, particularly as we are bringing forward interconnectors that will connect not only the UK with other countries, but wind farm to wind farm—it is always windy somewhere in the North sea—which will help to release capacity and drive down costs. My hon. Friend will see that through both our policy measures and our investment in infrastructure.

It would be wrong not to commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on this announcement as he has always been such a strong advocate for jobs at Grangemouth. Indeed, owing to his willingness to speak out against his Government, he lost the Labour Whip.

I noted from the photographs issued around today’s launch that workers at Grangemouth did not seem overly happy to see the Chancellor. Perhaps that was because they know that her policies, which continue to attack the oil and gas industry—particularly through the windfall tax—are leading to the undermining of the oil and gas industry across Scotland.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). I am sure that he would have liked to be here, but he was invited by the Secretary of State for Scotland to join him on the visit. He and I have spoken over the last few weeks. I assure the right hon. Member that I very much value my hon. Friend’s contributions, his relationship and his support, and I know that he is as pleased as I am by the announcement.

People in Falkirk, Grangemouth and across Forth valley are delighted to see the decisive action taken by this Government to preserve 500 jobs in our community. The £120 million investment and £150 million deal are Labour’s industrial strategy in action. It protects our industrial community and keeps essential national infrastructure viable. I hope that there is a consensus in this House that that is a welcome, positive step. It is worth noting that, earlier this year, the head of external affairs for INEOS told the Scottish Affairs Committee that prior to the November 2023 announcement of the refinery’s closure,

“Both Governments were given the opportunity, the data and access to the data to make an investment decision, and neither Government chose to do that.”

Both the Tories and the SNP had the opportunity in government to support workers at Grangemouth, but they did not lift a finger. Contrast that with this Government’s approach to the ethylene plant, acting decisively before it was too late.

Our action today and further action support new industry, with the welcome announcement last week of MiAlgae bringing 400 jobs across Scotland. Grangemouth’s industrial future must move forward and the Labour Government are providing substantial further resources towards that. Will the Minister provide us with greater detail on what guarantees the Government have received from INEOS for the long-term viability of the ethylene site at Grangemouth and when Grangemouth can expect further funding announcements from the National Wealth Fund’s £200 million commitment, as well as the additional £14 million secured by Scottish Labour MPs in the Budget last month, to get announcements made soon?

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued support for his constituents and the Grangemouth site. He welcomes the announcement and, quite rightly, he then presses me for more funding too. Further to the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to the Liaison Committee earlier this week, on the £200 million committed earlier this year for projects through the National Wealth Fund, those projects are being examined and shortlisted. I hope that they will come forward soon. I also take this opportunity to commend Siobhan Paterson, councillor for Upper Braes on Falkirk council, who has supported my hon. Friend in this work. I hope that when voters go to the polls for the Scottish parliamentary elections in Falkirk East and Linlithgow, they will recognise that and vote Labour too.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) did not get an invite, because we got to hear his excellent speech then.

Five hundred jobs being saved is incredibly important and, contrary to what the Prime Minister said earlier, everyone will welcome that, but we cannot escape the fact that 500 jobs are being lost every two weeks in Scotland’s North sea—not my figures but those of Paul de Leeuw from Robert Gordon University, and they are emphasised by the GMB trade union, local charities and industry itself. The Chancellor, while at Grangemouth —[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members make quips about people losing their jobs in the North sea. How dare they! While the Chancellor was at Grangemouth today, she was asked whether she agreed with that expert analysis. She said no. Does the Minister agree with her?

I sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the announcement. The season of goodwill really is spreading right across the House. He asks a serious question about the transition. We have made no bones about this: oil and gas is an incredibly important industry for the UK and will be for decades to come; but as the oil and gas basin declines, it is important that there is a transition. Fundamentally, that is the difference between this and previous Governments and the point of our industrial strategy.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions Robert Gordon University, which also identified that 90% of workers in the oil and gas sector have skills that are readily transferable into the 40,000 jobs that we are creating in Scotland in clean energy industries. That is in marked contrast with the SNP. In September, Professor Mariana Mazzucato—he may have heard of her because she was an adviser to the Scottish Government—said that the SNP Ministers in Scotland, on industrial strategy, talk the talk but do not walk the walk. This Government are walking the walk.

Is it not the stark and inconvenient truth for the Opposition parties that for years the Tories and the SNP sat on their hands and allowed the industrial needs of Scotland to go to the wall? Does my hon. Friend agree that, with this £120 million package, this Government are serious about backing our strategically vital industries as well as protecting thousands of jobs on the site and through our supply chains?

I do agree with my hon. Friend. It really is astonishing how the previous Conservative Government and the SNP Government in Scotland were prepared just to stand by and let the refinery at Grangemouth close after having been given data for years and deciding not to do anything about it at all. He rightly mentions the supply chains, and the multiplier of jobs in the supply chains is much greater. We recognise that this is a good investment for the taxpayer, not just to secure the vital product that we need in our chemicals and defence industries or because the ethylene plant is important in its own right, but to spread the economic benefits through the supply chains in Scotland and beyond.

First, like everyone else, I welcome 500 jobs having been secured, but 500 jobs a fortnight are being lost from the oil and gas sector because of this Government’s policies. The Minister has spoken about the supply chain, but those jobs and skills in the supply chain are being lost and will not be there for the transition because of the energy profits levy. The Government have defined what a windfall is. There are no longer windfall prices or windfall profits, but there is still a windfall tax. When will the Government get rid of the windfall tax to protect the supply chain, the oil and gas sector and our vital industries?

I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for the announcement. I think that is something that we can share across the whole House. I would just reiterate the point that the Government recognise the importance of the oil and gas sector. Of course it is important to the UK, to the people who work in it and to local communities as well, but we also recognise that the North sea is a declining basin. We have taken the actions, through our clean energy jobs plan and our clean energy initiatives, to ensure that we secure the supply chains for those clean energy jobs here in the UK. Again, this is a marked contrast between this Government and the previous Conservative Government, who were proud to boast of the UK being the largest market for offshore wind but enabled those jobs to be located in Denmark and other countries around the North sea. We do not think that is acceptable. That is why we are bringing the jobs here and helping workers to transition into those industries.

My hon. Friend makes the point incredibly well about the need to reindustrialise and create good industrial jobs. It is my mission as Industry Minister to release additional productive capacity in the UK that will increase our manufacturing output and improve our productivity and balance of trade. That is rare—it might be decades since a Government have had this level of ambition for our industrial and manufacturing sectors—but for us it is about not just ambition and words but delivering jobs on the ground.

It would be churlish of Opposition Members not to recognise the importance of these 500 jobs or welcome their being saved, as it would for Government Members not to acknowledge that we are seeing a sort of self-licking ice cream here—a self-perpetuating system whereby the Government have to intervene in industries that are being damaged by their own policies. Industry that is hanging on by the skin of its teeth will not take well to the news of cheaper energy prices in due course—years down the line—because it is almost at the edge of going out of business. Instead of measuring ourselves against expensive Italy and France, should we not be looking at the much cheaper prices in the United States and China?

I enjoyed the analogy about the self-licking ice cream, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a real industrial strategy is on the Conservative side of the House. We all like to think that things are simple, but then we grow up. It is important to recognise that these industries are trading in international markets and need to abide by their rules. What we have done is to create a package that supports a sustainable business plan for that industry. The hon. Member mentions the lower energy prices in the USA—I acknowledge that the USA has lower energy prices, primarily due to its decision to introduce fracking. We have decided not to do that. Is he saying that he would like to do that? If he would, that is fine, but it is a point of difference between us—we will not do that. Our policy is to ensure that our industries remain competitive without that.

I thank the Minister for the statement and the work his team and the Scotland Office team did in securing the 500 jobs at Grangemouth. I also pay tribute to the former Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—now the Chief Whip—for the work he did on this deal and on keeping the lights on last Christmas at Harland & Wolff in Arnish, Methil, Belfast and Appledore. Then as now, voters and workers expect the two Governments to work together, but the Minister will confirm that the SNP sat on its hands over Grangemouth. The SNP checked out—as it has checked out today—on standing up for Scotland’s workers.

My hon. Friend is right to mention the hard work of the Chief Whip and former Business Secretary, because deals like this with international businesses require a significant amount of discussion and engagement. That is precisely the point of our industrial strategy: it is a partnership in which the Government work closely together with businesses to secure investment for the long term. Investment like this hangs around for a generation and provides generational opportunities for employment in local areas. We know that the decisions that this Government are making will provide those employment opportunities for people in Grangemouth and across Scotland for generations to come.

The Minister mentioned in his statement the £200 million for projects in Grangemouth from the National Wealth Fund. I would like to raise with him a concern that was raised in evidence to the Treasury Committee, which is that the National Wealth Fund has to operate on the riskier end of project proposals because it does not want to crowd out private investment, but that means necessarily that many projects will fail. The worry is that politicians will not be ready to defend projects that fail under the National Wealth Fund. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and is he willing to accept that, given the risk profile of the National Wealth Fund, some projects will fail as part of the deal?

I very much welcome the hon. Member’s question because it gives me an opportunity to talk about risk appetite in investment, which I certainly am interested in—if other Members are not, I apologise in advance.

The National Wealth Fund is doing something special and different, but it is also worth looking at it alongside the other tools that the Government have: the British Business Bank and UK Export Finance. The hon. Member is right that the National Wealth Fund’s job is to crowd in, so it should not be at the easy end of the investment; otherwise, it would be crowding out. It has a target to produce a return on investment. Ultimately, the National Wealth Fund needs to take a portfolio approach that delivers that return. I know that in the past, industrial strategies in this country have suffered from casual approaches around things like “picking winners”—that sort of language is incredibly unhelpful. The point of taking a portfolio approach is that, of course, some businesses will succeed and some will not. Frankly, if every business the National Wealth Fund invests in succeeds, its risk appetite is in the wrong place. Some businesses will fail—we accept that; that is absolutely the point of the approach—but as a result of the National Wealth Fund’s investment partnering with industry in the commercial sector to de-risk projects, we will see some big successes, too.

This is such welcome news for Grangemouth and Scotland just prior to Christmas. My thanks go to the Minister and all Departments that worked jointly to secure the deal. It is a pity that the SNP could not bring itself to mention the Grangemouth investment earlier today at PMQs—perhaps after decades of failure, the SNP cannot recognise success. Does the Minister agree that both the SNP and the Tories sat on their hands while the future of jobs at Grangemouth was at risk? Does he agree that today’s announcement demonstrates that Scotland needs a Scottish Labour Government in Holyrood to secure more good jobs?

My hon. Friend is correct that the Government’s decision here and their previous industrial strategy decisions have been in marked contrast to the decisions of the Scottish National party and the Conservatives previously.

There is something astonishing about this. I know that the Conservatives are hidebound by their free market ideology, which means that they are prepared to let British businesses and jobs go to the wall, but surely they should stand up for things like defence and national security, for which these businesses are so vital? They support our defence supply chains, as well as health and water. It should be natural for the Conservatives to stand up for things like that. The past inaction of the Conservatives and the SNP on this issue has been astonishing. The big message to the voters of Scotland is: vote Labour in the spring.

I know that Government Members forget which Parliament they are actually in—who knows, maybe they would feel better in the Scottish Parliament.

This is a welcome announcement. For months now, the Scottish Government have been calling on the UK Government to intervene to protect jobs at Grangemouth and Mossmorran at a scale seen in other parts of the UK. The news will give some much needed Christmas cheer, at least to the Grangemouth community and the workers at Ineos Olefins & Polymers. Last week the Scottish Government, jointly with the UK Government and Celtic Renewables, announced an £8.5 million investment at the Grangemouth industrial cluster, including in MiAlgae. That will create up to 460 jobs, demonstrating that a long-term industrial future at the site is achievable. We will continue to do all we can within the limited powers that the Scottish Parliament has.

However, the announcement today does not help those at the neighbouring refinery whose jobs have already been lost. Although there may be some crossover support for nearby Mossmorran workers, there is still a substantial gap in support. Will the Minister finally accept that one of the most fundamental causes of the need for support is the fiscal regime being inflicted on oil and gas and the use of the energy profits levy, which make a just transition a near impossibility?

The hon. Gentleman mentions the refinery; as I said earlier, Ineos made the final decision to close the refinery in November 2023, having provided data for years to the Conservative Government in Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood, who said and did nothing.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the scale of investment; I am really surprised, to be honest, that he has not raised that even more firmly. We are talking about a complete package of investment in Grangemouth, announced by this Government, that approaches half a billion pounds: £100 million in the summer, £200 million from the National Wealth Fund, £14.5 million in the Budget and £150 million in this package. That is only a rounding error shy of half a billion pounds for Grangemouth. I would have thought that the SNP would at least acknowledge that.

I pay tribute to all the Ministers across all the Departments who have worked together to get this over the line. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for not giving up and making sure that it happened.

Grangemouth matters to all of us; we all have constituents who work in the complex or the supply chain. There has been real investment. As a result of announcements over the last few months and again today, we can talk about new highly skilled jobs for a generation. We are again able to talk to people locally about how important it is to get jobs in the advanced manufacturing and chemical sectors. Given that skills are devolved to the Scottish Government, how is the Minister liaising with them to make sure that we are getting that investment for our young people?

My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about how Grangemouth matters to the local area. I was chairing a roundtable of the chemicals industry at the Wilton cluster in Teesside; those who, like me, have worked in the chemicals industry or work there now know that Grangemouth matters to all of us across the United Kingdom. The support of the workers and families in Grangemouth makes a big difference to all our lives.

My hon. Friend mentioned jobs. I have talked about the jobs in the clean energy sector created in Scotland and the rest of the country. Last week, I saw that for myself when I attended a clean energy jobs fair at the port of Tyne. I spoke to apprentices excited about the new job opportunities that this Government are creating. The one thing that they know—they heard it from me and said it themselves—is that Reform are coming for their jobs. They know that firmly, and should certainly take it into account when they vote.

Order. Members know that I want to get everybody in, but I am aiming to finish the statement at around 5.30 pm, so please help each other by asking short questions and giving short answers.

I strongly welcome today’s announcement, which is important not only for workers in Grangemouth but for the wider Scottish economy. Whether it is today’s announcement about Grangemouth, protecting shipbuilding on the Clyde or the supercomputer in Edinburgh, the Labour Government are standing up for workers and for Scotland’s strategic industries. Does the Minister agree that whereas Labour stands up for manufacturing, the SNP can only manufacture grievance?

I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. Given that he represents Edinburgh, he might like to learn an interesting Grangemouth fact: if the Government had not stepped in to support Ineos, the Grangemouth site would be flaring enough gas every day to power the entire city of Edinburgh, such is the scale and importance of the Grangemouth site.

I call Dr Scott Arthur to ask a succinct question.

No pressure, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his statement and for not giving up on these workers. He was slightly generous in describing the situation inherited from the SNP and the Tories as “managed decline”, but perhaps that was because it is Christmastime. It is great to see my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), on the Front Bench, and I thank him for all his work in saving these jobs as well. On Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and I were at a meeting with representatives of the aviation sector, where Grangemouth was mentioned repeatedly. The aviation sector is desperate for more sustainable aviation fuel production in the UK and it is targeting Grangemouth as a potential source. Does the Minister agree with the sector about that?

Order. Minister, I need you to lead by giving an answer that is the definition of succinct.

I will try to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Grangemouth certainly has great potential for the manufacture of sustainable aviation fuel, along with our other clusters. My hon. Friend mentioned managed decline, but it was worse than that: it was complete indifference to industry and manufacturing in the UK.

I will try to keep my question brief. The SNP and the Tories sat on their hands while jobs and livelihoods were at risk, so I warmly welcome the announcement today and I thank the Minister and all Departments involved. The announcement not only protects 500 jobs; it is an investment in our national security. Does the Minister agree that it is only Labour that is backing business, backing workers and backing Scotland?

My hon. Friend is right that this is an investment in our national security, our infrastructure, our industry, the workforce and the opportunities for young people in the Grangemouth area.

Today’s news of UK Government investment in Grangemouth is welcome. Following the devastating announcement by ExxonMobil about job losses at Mossmorran in my constituency, the Mossmorran taskforce is now up and running to give maximum support to the workforce and to consider the future of that site. I welcome the news today that the Mossmorran workers will be prioritised for interview for new jobs created at Ineos in Grangemouth. The Minister and I have discussed this, but will he confirm that the Government are exploring investing in possible alternative futures for the site and the workforce at Mossmorran?

Industrial sites like the one at Mossmorran are incredibly valuable to the UK. We mentioned the strategic sites accelerator in our industrial strategy, and I would be interested to explore whether Mossmorran could be a part of that. It is important that we do that and that we move fast, because I learned only today that prior to this, the SNP-led Scottish Government have not held a single meeting about planning transition for Mossmorran, so we will have to run fast to catch up.

In common with colleagues, I thank all the Members on the Government Front Bench for their work on this investment, including the former Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), and the current Secretary of State. Grangemouth can be seen from the Fife coastal path in my constituency, and many of my constituents work at Grangemouth. While the site was totally ignored by the SNP and the Tories for years, this Government have dutifully and quietly gone about their work of finding an effective solution that will not only protect 500 jobs, but create more in the future, showing the commitment that this Government have to the Forth valley. Does the Minister agree that this shows what can happen when we have a constructive Labour Government, and that we could do even more with Anas Sanwar as the First Minister next year?

I do agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that with Anas Sarwar as the leader at Holyrood, we will be able to implement the Government’s work on Project Willow, which has identified Grangemouth as the ideal site for plastics recycling, biofuels and other projects that will maximise the local competitive advantage and the skills of the workforce.

After the Tories and the SNP did nothing for so many years to address the long-term future of Grangemouth, it is hugely welcome that Labour Ministers have made this announcement, which offers opportunities to workers in Fife affected by the closure of the ExxonMobil plant at Mossmorran. What further opportunities will the modern industrial strategy offer for skilled jobs in high-growth industries in Scotland, including at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved by this Government?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that it is only this Labour Government who have made this decision. This is an appropriate time to identify that the intervention in Grangemouth has a significant impact on securing our ethylene pipeline, which runs across the whole of the UK, as well as on chemical plants in Runcorn and the Forties pipeline. That demonstrates that interventions like this and plants such as Grangemouth work well when we are all part of an integrated United Kingdom.

Members might ask, “What has Grimsby got to do with Grangemouth?” Well, this is great news for Grangemouth, but I am afraid it will be cold comfort to the workers at the Prax Lindsey oil refinery, where 400 directly employed people have already lost or will lose their jobs by March, along with hundreds more in the supply chain. They will be asking, “Why the investment there but not here?” Is there any good news on the horizon for jobs in petrochemicals or energy in the Humber?

That is exactly the right question to ask about the Prax Lindsey oil refinery. One of the fundamental differences between the two is the Government’s ability to deal with the owner. The owner of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery left the business in a really terrible state. Of course, we all care very deeply for the workers there and for the families in Humberside; having worked in Humberside myself, I empathise greatly with them.

We are now in the late stages of the process with the official receiver, who has confirmed some redundancies because the offers he has received do not see refinery production returning within the next few years. We hope that process will conclude in the new year. I believe the jobs are guaranteed until March, and the Government have provided significant transitional support to help the workers to move into other jobs in the local area.