Rosebank Oil and Gas Field
Tuesday, 13 October 2026
Contributions
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)Labour
9. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of approval of the Rosebank oil and gas field on the UK’s ability to meet its climate change targets.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)Labour
Given that a regulatory process is under way, I cannot comment on particular projects. However, we have been very clear that any consenting decisions for new oil and gas must be compatible with our climate obligations. We have set that out at every stage of the process, since we inherited the court judgments on the previous Government’s handling of those consent decisions.
Many of my constituents in Putney have written to me about this. They are very concerned about Rosebank’s lifetime emissions, which are equivalent to 254 million tonnes of CO 2 . As many colleagues have mentioned, this summer, we had extreme weather. The London ambulance service said that it had more call-outs this summer, because of the heatwave, than it did during covid. With that background, can the Minister tell me whether approving Rosebank is compatible with the UK’s climate targets and obligations under the Paris agreement?
Let me reiterate that I cannot comment on particular projects that are being considered for decisions. On the more general point that my hon. Friend rightly raises, it is imperative that we look at the impact that climate change is having. We all lived through this summer, and have seen the evidence of climate change up close. It is important that any decisions we make are compatible with our climate obligations. As even the Conservatives have now accepted, it is worth remembering that any new projects in the North sea will not take a penny off bills.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)Conservative
Producing our own oil and gas means that we will import less dirtier hydrocarbons, so it is common sense to use our own resources, but while Labour dithers on approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, thousands of my constituents in Aberdeen South are losing their jobs. Will the Minister set out a timetable for deciding whether Rosebank and Jackdaw can proceed?
As I have said on a number of occasions, we are considering the evidence that has been submitted on these projects. We have had to pick up a process that was left behind by the previous Government, and we have done that as quickly as possible. We will make decisions in due course. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman speaks about common sense, but thousands of his constituents are reliant on jobs in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen, yet he stands here, time after time, opposing investment in those things. If he is in favour of jobs in his constituency, he should be in favour of all of them.
Mr SpeakerSpeaker
Order. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) is a new Member, but his behaviour counts, just as everybody else’s does. I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)Labour
In Canada, Prime Minister Carney has taken a more pragmatic approach to the energy transition than his predecessor, notably by designating the west coast oil pipeline as a project of national interest. In this country, the Prime Minister says that drilling in the North sea is something that he is pragmatic about. Does the Minister agree with continued drilling in the North sea, and does he see us taking a similar approach to Canada, and securing agreement to emission reductions in return for that drilling?
It is always useful to hear from the Chair of the Select Committee; I will look into the example he gave. On pragmatism, we have been clear that we want a pragmatic future for the North sea. That means continued oil and gas for many decades, but also investing in what comes next in the North sea, so that there is a fair and prosperous transition. The North sea remains a vital asset for the country, supporting jobs, growth and our energy security. We are determined to make sure that there is a strong pathway for the communities involved, and for jobs. Oil and gas will be important, but it is critical that we build up the industries that come next.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)Green Party
The Secretary of State has previously said that if we are to have any shot at meeting our climate change targets, “we can’t have any new oil and gas”. She also said that new fossil fuel development was “irresponsible and short-sighted”. There is nothing pragmatic about pouring more fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. Does the Secretary of State still agree with herself? If so, why will the Government not rule out Rosebank and Jackdaw?
It is pragmatic to say that oil and gas will continue to be a critical part of our energy mix for decades to come, and the North sea remains an important part of that. We are not about switching off the taps in the North sea—we said that in our manifesto, and we will deliver on it—but we are about building clean energy in the future. The Green party comes here and pontificates on a lot of these issues, but it opposes the very infrastructure that would get us off fossil fuels. It cannot have it both ways.
I call the shadow Minister.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)Conservative
We are in a global energy supply crisis, as oil shipments remain stuck; a fifth of global liquefied natural gas supplies have been disrupted by the war in Iran; and across Europe, gas reserves are at record lows as we head into winter. But there is good news: Jackdaw and Rosebank could be producing oil and gas this winter. The bad news is that we have a Government who are either too scared of their green lobby, or too naive about the supply risks that we face, to act. Now that the Holborn and St Pancras by-election is over, and before we get too close to COP, when will the Government finally take our energy security seriously and permit Jackdaw and Rosebank?
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as on staying in the energy brief. She eloquently outlines the exact problem at the heart of the Conservative party’s policy. She said clearly that the issues in the middle east leave us exposed to an energy crisis, but her party’s plan is to increase that exposure by having even more gas in our energy mix—it is simply not credible. The Conservatives’ plan has already been ridiculed because the figures were wrong when they published it; it had a gas price not based in reality, given everything going on in the middle east. We will make pragmatic decisions on the future of the North sea, but we are also all about our energy security long into the future. They remain stuck on the very exposure that is driving up everyone’s bills.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5415303.