Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if she will make a statement on the future of the Jackdaw and Rosebank oil fields following the closure of the public consultation.

First, I welcome and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new position as the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. The Scottish Court of Session quashed the original consents for these projects in January 2025. We published supplementary guidance in June 2025 to implement the Finch judgment, under which end-use combustion emissions must be taken into account in environmental impact assessments for oil and gas production projects. At that time, the Government reopened the window for applications. The Jackdaw and Rosebank fields are each subject to a live regulatory process. The public notice periods, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, closed on 10 and 17 August respectively, were part of that regulatory process. The Secretary of State will consider the representations received and will make separate decisions on each project in due course. I appreciate the strength of interest in this decision, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on either project. I have to say that it is a little rich hearing the Conservatives suddenly talk about protecting jobs and caring about Aberdeen. Let us look at the facts: by the end of 2016, under the Conservatives, more than 120,000 UK oil and gas jobs had gone, “more than a third of them in Scotland and the vast majority in the north-east”. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Conservative MSP Liam Kerr. And what happened to Aberdeen on their watch? The independent think-tank Centre for Cities calls it “Aberdeen’s lost decade”. It found that between 2010 and 2022, the city lost around 9,000 jobs under the Conservatives. Real household incomes per head fell 6.7%, and nearly 15,000 people left the city. In fact, Aberdeen was one of just two of Britain’s 62 largest cities and towns to have fewer jobs than in 2010. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that that is an abysmal record from his party in government. He may have a selective memory about the Conservatives’ record in the north-east of Scotland, but I do not think his constituents do.

I do not think the Conservative party will take any lectures from Labour on records in the north-east of Scotland, given the result in Aberdeen South only a few months ago, but I would like to thank the Minister for warmly welcoming me to my new position. The public consultation on Rosebank and Jackdaw has now closed, so the Department can no longer hide behind process, delay or consultation exercises. It has dithered, prevaricated and delayed for far too long. Industry and workers in and around Aberdeen, and indeed across the United Kingdom, need an answer now. We have a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State, so how about a new direction? That is what our oil and gas industry needs. That is what the thousands of workers in it, who do not know what lies ahead of them, need. I have a simple question for the Minister: will the Government finally approve Rosebank and Jackdaw—something we already did in government—or will they continue the previous Secretary of State’s campaign against Britain’s North sea oil and gas industry? It was the previous Secretary of State who refused to appeal the ruling against the decision over two years ago, the previous Secretary of State who refused to fast-track the consultation process, and the previous Secretary of State who refused to act in the national interest. This goes beyond Jackdaw and Rosebank alone; it is about whether Great Britain chooses to produce its own energy or become ever more dependent on imports from overseas—dirtier and more expensive foreign imports. Where does the Minister want the energy that we need to come from if the Government do not get on and approve Rosebank and Jackdaw? The question today is a simple one, but the answer could be transformative—for the North sea industry, for the north-east of Scotland and for the United Kingdom’s economic and energy security. When will the Government approve Jackdaw and Rosebank?

As I say, I appreciate that there is a huge amount of interest in the process, but I am sure we can all agree that we want this robust process to take its course. The worst thing that could happen would be something prejudicing or interfering with the process, and we end up having to rerun it. We will be following that due process. As I said, the process ended in August, and the Secretary of State will be taking the decisions in due course.

I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, our energy supply and our energy security are not a question of having either oil and gas, or renewables; they are about both. It is a great pity that proper process was not followed in 2022 or 2023. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says that it was; if that is true, why was it possible to challenge that in the courts? That is why it is really important that the Government get it right this time around. On North sea oil and gas, it is really important that we recognise the importance of the supply chain, the workers, their companies and their communities, because we need those people if we are to make the energy transition that is so critical to our future. Does the Minister agree that it is vital we support them while we gear up on renewables, so that they are available to contribute and can make that transition happen as fast and effectively as possible?

I thank my hon. Friend for his considered and thoughtful question. He is right. We are already drilling in the North sea, and we are clear that oil and gas have an important role. Under this Prime Minister, we have a pragmatic approach. It is important that we think about the workers, and he is right to think about the supply chain, both for the industries of today and the clean industries of the future.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

This summer, I saw at first hand the devastation that wildfires fuelled by climate change caused to Dunwich heath and the communities around it; my thoughts are with those impacted by wildfires nationwide this summer. That is why it is so shocking to see some parties across the House trading conservation of our environment for a scorched earth policy. We Liberal Democrat Members do not and will not accept assertions from the Conservatives and Reform that North sea licences would magically create billions to bring people’s bills down now. But we do need to bring people’s bills down—by investing in home-grown renewable power, while recognising that we need some oil and gas for decades to come. However, we must leave no part of the country behind in this pursuit. Will the Minister guarantee a genuinely just transition, with good-quality clean energy jobs, while protecting workers, supply chains and communities?

The hon. Lady brings her usual passion and commitment to the debate. She talked about the wildfires over the summer; the Prime Minister announced yesterday that we would have a wildfire summit. On today’s topic, we will continue with the robust process. I appreciate the strength of interest both in this place and outside, but given the quasi-judicial nature of the process, we cannot get involved further in it.

I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

The Government are right to take their time and make sure that they get this right—we saw what happened when the previous Government did not do the work that was needed. This is a delicately balanced decision. The world already has all the oil it will need until 2050, so further exploration would increase the amount of oil there is, drive down prices and slow down the transition to renewables, but there is the strong argument that we will be importing oil and gas, and that new licences would slightly reduce the amount we import. My hon. Friend is right to take the time to ensure that we get this right. She should listen carefully to all the arguments being made on both sides of the House. Those jobs are important, but so is the transition that the Government are rightly committed to.

I thank my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest in this area. He is right that we need to take our time with the process, respect its robustness and think about the implications. I know that the Secretary of State will be doing that, and will consider all the evidence that will be supplied to her.

I must admit that I am angry and disappointed when I hear Members on other Benches seeming to cast aside jobs in my constituency. On 18 June, the people of Aberdeen South sent the huge message to both this Labour Government and the SNP Government in Holyrood that they will not stand back and watch their jobs being destroyed. Every month, 1,000 jobs are being lost in the UK oil and gas industry. Every month, the Government dither and delay, which means more jobs lost. Does the Minister not accept that those workers deserve clarity, and not to have the decision kicked further down the road? They need assurance that their jobs will be saved.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that question so passionately on behalf of his constituents. I agree that jobs are key; that is why, when it comes to the North sea, we have expanded training and support, and the new jobs service. I also agree that we want clarity on this decision. Regretfully, we cannot say a huge amount about the process today, because we want that process to be respected. It has to be a robust process, and it is quasi-judicial; I am very concerned to be respectful of that. I want to ensure, for his constituents and for the rest of the country, that a clear decision is made that respects that robust process.

I can assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that this issue is about jobs not just in his constituency, but in Na h-Eileanan an Iar and across the whole UK. I have already presented the new Prime Minister with a map of the UK showing the postcode of payslips; almost every constituency is affected. I echo the Prime Minister’s words to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) the other day; he said: “we need to be pragmatic—we will still need to rely on oil and gas for some years to come” —[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 44.] and that it would be a mistake to say that it has to be one or the other, when we need both. I remind the Minister making this decision that, when it comes to Rosebank and Jackdaw, we do need both.

As we have all heard, there is a significant amount of interest in , thoughts and opinions in this place and outside. The Prime Minister has said that we will take a pragmatic approach, and oil and gas will remain part of our future going forward but, in terms of this specific process and those specific decisions, I cannot comment any further today.

The Minister is surely aware that there is no route to net zero that does not go through oil and gas hydrocarbons, and that not exploiting resources on the UK continental shelf leaves us reliant on imports, which also has carbon consequences that must be taken into account. If we do not maintain critical mass in the supply chain in the north-east of Scotland and elsewhere, it will be more difficult to develop the next generation of clean, renewable energy—particularly marine renewables, which are being developed in my constituency. Finally, can she just remember that we are talking about two different commodities here? It is not helpful to speak about oil and gas as if they were the same thing.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thoughts. Oil and gas will be part of our energy mix, and the environmental impact assessment that is taking place will take account of Scope 3 emissions. He is right to mention, as others have, that the North sea offers opportunities in both clean energy and fossil fuel energy, and we need to think about it in a holistic sense.

Personally, I cannot see that Rosebank is compatible with meeting our climate objectives, but I recognise that the process should be followed. Green Alliance has reported that the gas being wasted in the North sea would be enough to heat 570,000 homes. It has been over a year since the Government issued a methane action plan—I think the Minister took it over from me. Methane is more than 80 times more powerful than CO 2 in the short term, so what are we doing to reduce venting and flaring in the North sea?

I thank my hon. Friend for all her work on this, not only in her previous role, but before she came to this place and throughout her time here. I am grateful for her awareness of the process. She raises an important point about methane: it is a very potent greenhouse gas, and reducing venting and flaring would represent a cost and efficiency saving. We should be using our energy efficiently. I am meeting with international colleagues in the coming weeks to discuss the issue, but we are also working on this domestically. I appreciate her raising that point, and we will continue to work on it.

The BBC and others have reported that importing liquefied natural gas is 10 times more polluting than pipeline gas. Does the Minister agree with that assessment? Further, has any assessment been made of what the impact of Jackdaw would be on reducing pollution?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his specific questions. I have not seen the BBC’s report; I would be very happy for him to send it to me. As I said to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), Scope 3 emissions will be part of the environmental impact assessment, which will be given to the Secretary of State and will feed into her decision-making process.

If Jackdaw and Rosebank proceed, they will create and sustain thousands of skilled jobs and apprenticeships, which will be crucial to developing our renewables sector further in the future. Does the Minister agree that this should be a crucial factor in the decision?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of jobs. Since we came into government, we have expanded the North sea jobs service to support workers. He is right that there is a huge crossover between renewables and oil and gas workers. It has struck me that at every wind farm we visit, we usually hear a Scottish accent. As I say, the Secretary of State will be aware of the point he makes about jobs.

There is a geographical divide on this issue starker than I have ever seen in this place. Across all parties, every Member representing a Scottish constituency has stressed the issue of jobs, and how important this is to the north-east of Scotland. If that does not make it clear that Scotland needs to be in control of energy policy, I do not know what does. The Minister has mentioned two things about the consultation. She has said that a decision will be taken in due course. Does “in due course” mean before the Budget? Does it mean in 2026, 2027 or even 2029? Could she pin it down slightly further than that? On Scope 3 emissions, will she be very clear and ensure that what is published is what the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) asked for: a comparison of how much the import of LNG would affect the environment, as against how much approving Jackdaw would affect the environment?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I admire her trying to lure me into a conversation on independence and devolution. I am afraid that that is not part of the scope of the discussion today, so I will not go into that. On the timeline, I have said that a decision will be taken in due course. We are fully aware of the need for clarity, but the most important thing for me is the robustness of the process. The worst outcome for everybody would be if a comment I made today ended up inadvertently undermining the process. I agree on making sure that we have a just transition, and on supporting our Scottish workers when it comes to the jobs and industries of the future.

I think we need a pragmatic approach on oil and gas—one that is focused on people and prioritising British businesses and communities. I want to see a positive decision on both Rosebank and Jackdaw, but does the Minister agree that we are in this position—with less clarity and less security about what is going to happen—because of the Conservatives’ abject failure to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to run a properly managed decision process on Jackdaw and Rosebank in the first place, all while overseeing an absolute failure to effectively transition to a low-carbon economy, and the loss of over 120,000 jobs in the industry?

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent analysis of why we have ended up here; he is absolutely right. It is on all of us to respect the process. I think that the feeling of the House is that we want clarity, and the way to achieve that is by having a robust process. It is hugely important that we respect that today. I understand the amount of interest in this, but as I said in my opening remarks, I find it a little audacious that this is something that we have had an about turn on—and it is not the only thing that this shadow Secretary of State has had an about turn on.

The fact is that the gas and oil coming from the North sea is declining year by year. The sad reality is that without a decision on the two fields, Jackdaw and Rosebank, we will be totally dependent on expensive inputs. I understand the Minister not wanting to interfere in the quasi-judicial process, but will she accept the principle that it is far better for us to supply our own oil and gas rather than importing expensive oil and gas from abroad?

I appreciate the hon. Member’s respect for the process and the need for clarity and robustness. He makes the important point that it is a declining basin and, therefore, we also need to make sure that we have other sources of energy. That is why record investment in clean energy has been secured from the Government and the private sector to make sure that we have as much energy in that area.

The Conservative party failed to invest in clean power, and now there is a suggestion that it failed to invest altogether. Will the Minister tell the House what action this Government are taking to ensure that overseas wars do not increase my constituents’ bills, making the cost of living unaffordable?

I thank my hon. Friend, who is passionate about her constituency and about this area. She is right that we are at the behest of the fossil fuel rollercoaster, and we have all seen the impacts of that over the last few years. We have had two international energy crises in the last four years, and we are, at the moment, a price-taker on the international fossil fuel markets, which has an impact on our constituents. That is why our Secretary of State is focusing on energy affordability as her priority.

We cannot discuss this issue without recognising that the climate breakdown is already costing us hugely: the hottest summer ever, the worst arable harvest ever, and the Met Office says that it was 130 times more likely that we faced this crisis this year. Just today, the World Meteorological Organisation has said that climate breakdown is super-charging natural phenomena such as El Niño. The shadow Secretary of State says that North sea communities need a new direction: yes, a just transition to clean energy for the future, not the dirty energy of the old. Will the Minister recognise that the climate damage created by Rosebank and Jackdaw will hugely outweigh any potential economic benefits and therefore rule them out? Fossil fuels must stay in the ground if we are to have a liveable future.

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her passion on this topic. The environmental impact assessment that has been part of the process will take account of Scope 3 emissions. I can say no more about the Rosebank and Jackdaw decisions today, but what I will say is that this Government take climate change incredibly seriously. I hope that she heard the new Prime Minister talking about it on Tuesday and heard his commitment. He will also go to Turkey for the COP this year.

As a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, I have taken evidence on the complexity of the North sea oil and gas discussion and the long-term decline of that mature basin. As the Member of Parliament for two nuclear power stations, I will not take lectures on energy jobs and their importance, particularly given the lack of progress on nuclear under the Conservatives. I think the complexity of the discussion is lost on the Opposition, and some of their assertions, particularly on the prices of new drilling, is simply not based on any evidence. Although this is a complex discussion, does the Minister agree that what is clear and simple is that climate change is an existential threat, and that a clean and fair energy transition is vital to tackling climate change?

I have been subject to my hon. Friend’s tough questioning on the Select Committee, so it is a joy to have it in the House as well. I cannot say any more today on the specific process because, as we have collectively agreed, its robustness is key, and I am cautious of saying anything that would jeopardise that because we want that clarity of decision. At the same time, as I have just said to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), we know that climate change is a key issue. We saw the wildfires this summer and, only this week, we saw the Prime Minister talking in his first interventions about committing to the COP and having a wildfire summit.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the process, and I respect that. But most people who take a pretty level-headed, pragmatic view of the need for a transition over time still cannot get their heads around the short-term reality: when we have so much turmoil in the middle east, why would we extend the time that we are not relying on our own available resources? Also, speaking as a member of the Treasury Committee, when it would generate £1 billion to £2 billion of VAT receipts alone, and given the severe impact on the economy of the north-east of Scotland of not doing so, can the decision not be made more quickly based on principled guidance from this Government?

As for the timeline, as I say, the decision will come in due course, but the robustness of the process is absolutely key. I have already stated to the House that it was only in August that these consultations closed. There is a lot of interest in this place and outside, and our Secretary of State wants to consider things properly to ensure that we can expedite the decision as soon as we can, but that has to be done properly or we will all end up back here again. Let us ensure that we respect the process, and we will do that. I have heard the right hon. Member’s thoughts, but there is interest both in here and outside.

One of my great frustrations in the debate around energy security is the way that populism and ideology pollute the debate. Hartlepool has one of the largest clean-energy economies in England, through new nuclear, which some oppose, and through renewables, which others oppose, but both of which I support. I also support drilling in the North sea. It is good for jobs and good for the economy. Will the Minister take the message back to her Department that we must approve Jackdaw and Rosebank and go further to expand drilling in the North sea?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and interest in this and other energy decisions. I cannot make any further comments on these particular projects because of the robust regulatory process that is under way.

Both Labour and the Conservatives are guilty of failing oil and gas workers by driving uncertainty in this debate: the Conservatives by their U-turn on climate change policy, something which both the oil and gas sector and the renewables sector are deeply unhappy with, and the Labour Government by their complete lack of pace in decision making on regulatory issues, such as the transmission network use of system—TNUoS—charges, the 18 months to decide what is happening at Ardersier, and now on Jackdaw and Rosebank. The whole energy sector needs pace in and clarity of decision making. Scotland would make this a priority with the full powers of independence. Will the Government put the same pace and effort in?

I agree with the hon. Member that the Opposition have made a certain number of U-turns, and those U-turns keep coming so we will continue to see what their position is. Also, their lack of clarity on strategic planning for our energy systems—they are not listening—has had regretful consequences. Where I would disagree is that the deadline was in August, and everybody would expect us to listen to that evidence and take account of all that input. On not moving at pace, nobody would say that this Government have not moved at pace in terms of our clean energy mission.

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee heard that production rose by a fifth between 2014 and 2019, when there was a much more favourable taxation regime, and that jobs continued to fall in the sector. The evidence is clear: approving Rosebank and Jackdaw will not protect jobs. The sector is unfortunately in decline. But does the Minister agree that if we can fix the transition costs that are stopping renewables, end the ridiculous delays from the National Energy System Operator on connections, end the SNP’s blocking of nuclear and, of course, ramp up support and training for workers, that will help revive the sector and make it sustainable long term?

I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in this matter and the wider debate. I appreciate the strength of feeling—I can hear the strength of feeling on both sides of this House. I cannot say any more about the specific process and the decisions that are under way, but we are doing everything we can to ensure that our energy system works efficiently and moves at pace. I look forward to continuing to engaging with him on that.

We have heard a lot from the Government about energy security, but if Rosebank were to go ahead, we would not own the oil or set its price and most of it would not be refined here. Thousands of homes in my constituency are off the gas grid and are heated with oil bought by the tankful at whatever the international price happens to be that week. Will the Minister explain what security a barrel sold on the international market at the international price buys for the households of the South Cotswolds?

I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in this area. Getting into any defence of specific areas may lead me to potentially say things that I should not say as it is a decision for the Secretary of State. She will take into account the environmental impact assessment, and we are working through the large amount of evidence that has come into the Department.

I will say from the outset that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy): I am afraid I do not agree with drilling for oil in Rosebank. It would not take a penny off bills, and it would absolutely blow our carbon emissions targets out the water. The Conservatives are living in another world if they have not lived through the summer that we have all lived through, with drought and wildfires all across south Wales. We need to go hard on the green transition. Does the Minister agree that we should keep to our targets in the Climate Change Act 2008 and that we should not agree with the Conservatives to repeal it?

I note my hon. Friend’s opinion. As I say, there is a strength of feeling on the different sides of the House. We are noting that, but I will make no comment. On her question about the Climate Change Act, I was absolutely baffled at the Conservatives’ position. It was not a position that the shadow Secretary of State took when he was in power, and many in his party would be ashamed. I noted the article in the Financial Times from a former Environment Secretary, who referred to it as “tin-eared”.

Our long-term goal must be energy independence so that we are never again at the mercy of volatile foreign regimes for our basic power needs. National Energy Action Northern Ireland has highlighted that roughly 39% of households in Northern Ireland are currently living in fuel poverty. That is compounded by the fact that 60% of homes in Northern Ireland still rely on heating oil and are subject to unregulated markets. Given that the public consultation has now concluded, will the Minister assure the House that the final decision will strike a balance between our environmental responsibilities and the urgent need to protect domestic energy security, shield hard-pressed working families from soaring utility bills and safeguard the thousands of vital jobs supported by our domestic energy sector?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those important points. The Secretary of State has put energy affordability at the heart of our agenda, and we will continue to do that. She has worked on fuel poverty for many years and is hugely passionate about it. When the strait of Hormuz and middle east crisis began, we took action on heating oil, and the Government are investing a record amount in warm homes. We need to do that at pace to make sure it is felt in constituencies and postcodes across our islands.

I echo the comments made by the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. At risk of inviting criticism from the left and the right, I plead for some nuance in this debate. These are two materially different prospects, and of course one of them is able to feed directly into our domestic market. I urge Ministers to make sure that the decision is made based on evidence rather than just ideology.

I assure my hon. Friend that we are very much in favour of evidence-based policymaking.

Given the climate emergency that we are already living through, this is obviously a hugely significant decision for the Secretary of State. While I respect that the Minister cannot comment on the merits of each proposal, surely she can comment on how the House will be able to scrutinise any final decision. When a final decision is taken, can she confirm from the Dispatch Box that there will be a chance to debate and vote on it in the House?