Andy Burnham urged to find backbone and green light mega deal ‘before it’s too late’. hyn
The PM faces an electoral contest with the Greens but there is great concern about North Sea energy (Image: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images)
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has been urged to find the “backbone” to give the green light to drilling in North Sea oil and gas fields rather than delaying an announcement for fear of boosting support for the Greens. Labour is battling to stop Green leader Zack Polanski winning Sir Keir Starmer’s old seat of Holborn and St Pancras in the October 8 by-election.
Mr Burnham has been urged to use his flagship speech at next week’s Labour conference to declare his support for the energy projects as fears mount about the future of Britain’s oil and gas industry. The Government had been expected to back drilling in the Jackdaw gas field before Parliament broke up for the conference recess but a decision is now not expected until after Labour’s showdown with the Greens.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Russell Borthwick, Chief Executive of Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce, told the Sunday Express: “Decisions of this importance should be taken on their merits, not delayed for political expediency. Jackdaw and Rosebank represent billions of pounds of investment, support thousands of good jobs and will provide secure energy from our own waters that Britain will otherwise have to import.”
Industry body Offshore Energies UK supports the development of renewable technology but warns that more than 40% of UK energy is now imported and forecasts that the country will need at least 11 billion barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050.
Richard Brooks, who leads the Conservative group on Aberdeen’s city council, said: “It is essential that Andy Burnham considers the national and local economic picture and uses his conference speech to alleviate all doubt and give the Rosebank and Jackdaw projects the green light. Having the backbone to make such an announcement would do much for his credibility among many oil and gas workers that this Labour party have claimed time and time again to represent.”
Britain was left in no doubt about the strength of feeling in June when the Conservatives ousted the SNP in the Aberdeen South by-election.
An industry insider said: “Every delay pushes us closer to a point where recovery becomes impossible. If the postponement of Jackdaw and Rosebank is indeed a political calculation designed to influence a by‑election, it is profoundly irresponsible. While Westminster hesitates, a once world‑leading industry edges towards the point of no return.”
Andy Mayer, and energy analyst with the Institute of Economic Affairs, also urged the PM to put aside the threat to his party from the Greens in London.
He said: “Oil and gas prices are at their highest level since 2022. The UK is sitting on vast reserves, and will be using both well beyond 2050. Opening these fields should not be a matter of debate, the economic and security case is clear. A serious Government, let alone one with an unassailable majority, would be considering that ahead of the obsessions of internal critics and campaigners in a single seat.”
Zack Polanski is standing to succeed Sir Keir Starmer in Holborn and St Pancras (Image: James Manning/PA Wire)
The Tories have linked the hike in inflation to 3.1% to Labour’s “mad energy policies”. Further support for drilling came from leading think tanks.
Sean Ridley, an energy researcher at the Centre for Policy Studies, called on Mr Burnham to stand up to Left-wing opponents of drilling, saying: “He might face resistance from within his party but it’s time to show leadership and recognise that what we’re doing is placing now an undue burden on bill payers and British industry.”
Fred de Fossard of the Prosperity Institute warned: “If the Prime Minister takes British energy security and British prosperity seriously he would approve these fields, repeal the windfall tax on the North Sea and remove all regulatory barriers to drilling.”
And Silvia Andreoletti of the Adam Smith Institute, said: “The UK’s energy costs are the highest in the developed world and are continuing to rise, taking more and more money out of Brits’ pockets. Expensive energy hurts manufacturing, increases inflation, and is one of the country’s biggest barriers to growth.
“If Britain wants genuine energy security, it must develop its own oil and gas supply. To remain reliant on imported energy means being at the mercy of price fluctuations and exposed to even bigger cost hikes.”
Protesters in 2024 opposing Rosebank drilling (Image: Andrew Milligan/PA Wire)
But Areeba Hamid of Greenpeace UK argued: “The case for saying no to Jackdaw and Rosebank only gets stronger as the decision is deferred. The Government might want to put some distance between the wildfires and drought of the summer and an expansion of fossil fuel drilling, but would that decision look any less absurd a few months from now, with ministers standing knee-deep in the floodwater?
“The right decision is obvious. Pass on Jackdaw and Rosebank, and instead put the energy, investment and political capital into the cheap, homegrown renewable power that will bring down bills and create long-term employment.
“On all counts – bills, jobs and emissions – the case against drilling is clear cut.”
A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “We do not comment on speculation. The North Sea remains a vital national asset and oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our energy system for decades to come – alongside transitioning to clean power to protect jobs and tackle the climate crisis.
“Any decision will take into account all relevant evidence, including environmental assessments and public representations received during the consultation process.”
Andy Burnham Urged to Find “Backbone” and Green-Light Mega North Sea Deal Before It’s Too Late
Prime Minister Andy Burnham is facing mounting pressure to make a decision on two major North Sea energy projects, with industry leaders warning that further delays could put billions of pounds of investment and thousands of jobs at risk.
The projects at the centre of the dispute are the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oil field, both of which have become symbols of the wider argument over Britain’s energy security, economic growth and commitment to net zero.
According to recent reports, representatives of the UK oil and gas industry have urged Burnham to approve the developments rather than allow the decisions to become entangled in short-term political calculations. The Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce has argued that the projects represent billions of pounds of investment and could support thousands of jobs.
The pressure comes at an awkward time for the new Labour government. Burnham has publicly reaffirmed his commitment to Britain’s 2050 net-zero target, while environmental campaigners are warning that approving new fossil-fuel developments would undermine that commitment.
At the same time, supporters of North Sea production argue that Britain will continue to need oil and gas for many years, regardless of how quickly renewable energy expands.
That tension has placed Burnham at the centre of one of the government’s most difficult economic and environmental decisions.
A decision with billions at stake
Jackdaw and Rosebank are not new proposals. Both projects had previously received approval under the Conservative government, but legal challenges resulted in the approvals being overturned and requiring further environmental assessment.
The two developments are now awaiting decisions from Burnham’s government. Sky News reported in August that both projects had become a major focus of the debate over energy security and the UK’s transition towards renewable energy.
For the energy industry, the argument is straightforward: Britain is still going to consume oil and gas, so producing some of it domestically could reduce dependence on imports.
Offshore Energies UK has argued that supporting domestic production would provide economic benefits while reducing reliance on imported fuels. The organisation has described approval of Jackdaw and Rosebank as potentially part of a broader “reset” between the government and the North Sea industry.
Industry representatives have also warned that delaying investment decisions could make it harder for companies to commit capital to the UK.
That concern has become more significant as the North Sea industry faces a long-term decline in production and uncertainty over taxation and future licensing.
A recent call from Offshore Energies UK went even further, urging the government to bring forward the replacement of the North Sea windfall tax from 2030 to 2027. The industry body argued that the current fiscal framework was making investment more difficult.
The “before it’s too late” warning
The latest pressure campaign is based partly on the argument that time is running out.
Supporters of the projects say that delays do not simply postpone production. They can also affect investment decisions, supply chains and the future skills base of the British offshore energy industry.
Russell Borthwick, chief executive of Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce, has urged the government to judge Jackdaw and Rosebank on their economic and energy merits rather than delaying them for political reasons.
The argument has particular resonance in north-east Scotland, where the oil and gas industry has played a major role in employment and the regional economy for decades.
Supporters therefore see the decision as being about more than two individual fields. They see it as a test of whether Britain intends to maintain a domestic energy industry while simultaneously developing renewable power.
But the climate argument remains powerful
The opposition to Jackdaw and Rosebank is equally strong.
Environmental groups argue that approving new oil and gas extraction is inconsistent with Britain’s climate commitments. Greenpeace UK has said that the case against the two developments is strengthened by the UK’s experience of extreme weather and argued that investment should instead be directed towards renewable energy.
Climate scientists who previously worked on Greater Manchester’s carbon-neutral programme have also urged Burnham not to approve new North Sea drilling.
They argue that Burnham’s previous record as mayor, including Greater Manchester’s ambition to become carbon neutral by 2038, creates an expectation that his government should maintain a strong climate position.
That creates an obvious political contradiction.
Burnham has recently reaffirmed that the UK must remain committed to reaching net zero by 2050. He has also promoted community-owned renewable energy as part of a strategy intended to combine climate action with lower energy costs and economic development.
Approving new fossil-fuel production could therefore invite criticism from environmental campaigners and some Labour MPs.
Energy security versus climate policy
The central question is whether expanding domestic oil and gas production can coexist with Britain’s long-term climate objectives.
Supporters say it can.
Their argument is that the UK cannot immediately stop using oil and gas. Even if domestic production falls, households and businesses will continue to require energy, meaning Britain may have to import more from overseas.
From this perspective, domestic production could provide tax revenues, employment and energy-security benefits during the transition.
Critics dispute the scale of those benefits. They argue that North Sea oil and gas production is declining and that new developments would not fundamentally eliminate Britain’s dependence on international energy markets.
The climate argument is also based on the long-term consequences of burning the extracted fuels.
This is why Rosebank in particular has become such a prominent environmental issue.
Burnham’s difficult political calculation
The political timing makes the decision even more complicated.
Recent reporting suggests that the government had been expected to make decisions on the projects before Parliament’s conference recess, but the timetable changed. The Sunday Express reported that the decisions were not expected until after Labour’s internal political events and the upcoming Holborn and St Pancras by-election.
That has generated accusations that ministers could be delaying the decision because of its potential electoral consequences.
The government has not accepted that interpretation.
A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said the government does not comment on speculation and that any decision would take account of environmental assessments and representations received during the consultation process.
That distinction is important.
A delay does not necessarily demonstrate that ministers are acting for electoral reasons. Major energy projects involve environmental assessments, legal requirements and detailed economic considerations.
A wider question about Britain’s energy future
The dispute over Jackdaw and Rosebank is ultimately part of a much larger debate.
Britain wants to expand renewable electricity, reduce carbon emissions and reach net zero. At the same time, it must maintain reliable energy supplies, support industrial production and prevent energy costs from placing excessive pressure on households.
Those objectives do not always point in the same direction.
Renewable energy requires major investment in generation, storage and electricity networks. Meanwhile, oil and gas remain important to the wider economy and energy system.
Burnham therefore faces a choice over how his government manages the transition rather than simply whether Britain should have one.
His government could approve the projects while maintaining its long-term net-zero commitment, arguing that domestic production is necessary during the transition.
Alternatively, it could reject them and attempt to accelerate investment in renewable energy, arguing that new fossil-fuel developments risk locking Britain into an outdated energy model.
There are also possible positions between those two extremes, including stricter conditions, tighter environmental requirements or policies designed to ensure that any economic benefits from domestic energy production support the transition to cleaner technologies.
The pressure is unlikely to disappear
Whatever Burnham decides, the controversy will continue.
If Jackdaw and Rosebank are approved, environmental groups are likely to demand an explanation of how the decision fits with the government’s 2050 net-zero commitment.
If the projects are rejected, the oil and gas industry and politicians representing energy-producing regions are likely to question the government’s approach to energy security, employment and investment.
The decision could therefore become one of the defining early tests of Burnham’s government.
The Prime Minister has promised to combine economic growth with ambitious social and environmental policies. The North Sea dispute will test whether those objectives can coexist when the government is confronted with a concrete decision involving billions of pounds of investment.
For the energy industry, the message is increasingly urgent: make a decision before investment and industrial capacity disappear.
For environmental campaigners, the message is equally clear: Britain cannot claim to be serious about net zero while approving significant new fossil-fuel extraction.
Burnham now has to weigh those competing arguments.
The eventual decision on Jackdaw and Rosebank will not settle Britain’s energy debate. But it could provide a clear indication of how the new government intends to balance energy security, economic growth, jobs and climate policy for the years ahead.
