Andy Burnham urged to deliver ‘real change’ and approve new North Sea drilling
Andy Burnham has come under pressure from the Conservatives to approve new North Sea oil and gas drilling, with critics warning that blocking two major projects would be a "dereliction of duty". The call came as the public consultation on the Jackdaw gas field off Aberdeen closed, while a separate consultation on the Rosebank oil field west of Shetland is due to close the following week, putting the Prime Minister under mounting pressure to make a decision on the sector's future.
Shadow Scottish Secretary Andrew Bowie said approving production at Jackdaw and Rosebank should be "an easy decision" rather than a dilemma, urging Burnham to deliver "real change" instead of "warm words" for the industry. Bowie argued that Britain needs to "get drilling again", framing the fields as a straightforward test of the government's commitment to North Sea energy production.
- Tories urge Burnham to approve Jackdaw and Rosebank drilling projects.
- Jackdaw gas field consultation has closed; Rosebank's closes next week.
- Andrew Bowie says approval should be an "easy decision", not a dilemma.
New here? Start with this
Andy Burnham became Prime Minister earlier this year and now faces decisions on two big North Sea projects: the Jackdaw gas field off Aberdeen and the Rosebank oil field west of Shetland. Both would extend UK oil and gas production for years to come, and both have been subject to public consultations, part of the legal process needed before they can go ahead, with Jackdaw's just closed and Rosebank's closing shortly after.
The projects sit at the centre of a long-running debate over the UK's energy future: supporters say they protect jobs, energy security and tax revenue, while opponents argue new fossil fuel extraction is at odds with climate commitments. The Conservatives, represented here by Shadow Scottish Secretary Andrew Bowie, have been pushing the government to approve both fields, framing it as a test of its commitment to the North Sea industry and the communities that depend on it.
The outcome matters beyond the fields themselves, since it will signal how the government intends to balance energy supply, jobs and climate goals, and could shape the pace and scale of future North Sea development.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that approving Jackdaw and Rosebank is a matter of energy security and economic pragmatism: producing gas and oil domestically reduces reliance on imported fuel, which often carries a higher carbon footprint when shipped as LNG, while sustaining thousands of jobs and supply-chain investment in Aberdeen and the wider North Sea economy. They contend that the licensing and consultation processes have already been followed rigorously, that billions in capital investment and pension fund returns are at stake, and that a swift, clear decision would signal investment stability rather than the regulatory uncertainty they say has driven firms to scale back UK operations.
The case against
Opponents argue that approving major new oil and gas fields is incompatible with the UK's legally binding net zero targets and the scientific consensus that most existing fossil fuel reserves must stay unextracted to limit warming, and they note that oil and gas produced in the North Sea is largely sold on international markets rather than guaranteeing lower UK energy bills. They point to the Supreme Court's Finch ruling requiring downstream emissions to be assessed before approval, and argue that public money and political capital would be better directed toward accelerating renewables, grid infrastructure and a genuinely just transition for oil and gas workers rather than prolonging fossil fuel dependency.