Labour backbenchers fight to keep Rosebank oil decision with Energy Secretary

Labour MPs are pressing the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to leave the Rosebank oilfield decision entirely in the hands of the Energy Secretary. Backbenchers fear that cabinet colleagues are trying to override Miatta Fahnbulleh, who is reportedly minded to refuse environmental permission for the field. This internal dispute has created visible tension within the government.

Sources close to Chancellor John Healey indicate he supports the oil project. Some members of the government believe Prime Minister Andy Burnham also favors moving forward. Backbenchers concerned about the environmental impact are urging their whips and Downing Street to prevent other ministers from intervening. They argue the decision should rest with the minister responsible for energy.

Catherine Fookes, a Labour member of the energy select committee, stated that approving Rosebank would damage the party's green credentials. A group of MPs is telling leadership that this must be Fahnbulleh's decision. Fookes added that Labour MPs are deeply concerned because the move would go against the thrust of the party's manifesto.

Another MP described the situation as economically shortsighted and politically explosive. They warned that if Healey pushes the project through, it could lead to a major internal conflict. One colleague noted that Fahnbulleh is in an intolerable position due to the way the issue has been briefed. Concerns have also been raised directly with Healey during budget meetings.

Fahnbulleh's parliamentary aides circulated a memo to MPs insisting she has the final say on the proposals. The memo stated that no decision has been made yet. It emphasized that the Energy Secretary is the only decision-maker in this quasi-judicial process. No other cabinet member or minister has a role in the decision or sees the advice on it.

Prime Minister Burnham has promised a pragmatic approach to North Sea oil drilling. He called the Jackdaw gasfield, which the government approved last week, a bridge to the future. While Burnham insists the Rosebank decision belongs to Fahnbulleh, his comments in the Commons on Wednesday fueled speculation about his support. He argued that using reserves can accelerate a clean energy future, citing the logic behind the Jackdaw decision.

Many in government believe Fahnbulleh can approve Rosebank without breaching UK carbon commitments. They point out that most of the oil would be exported. The Treasury revealed on Tuesday that it has already factored in tax revenues from the scheme. These revenues are expected to reach about 500 million pounds by the end of this parliament.

Treasury officials said on Wednesday that the money was included in forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility since 2019. They argued this does not prevent the Energy Secretary from blocking the project. The OBR stated in its budget forecast that the projection includes production from currently producing fields and estimates for new fields like Rosebank. The annual pace of decline would be around 14% per year without new production.

Some Labour MPs believe the Treasury is using aggressive tactics to pressure the energy department. One MP described the approach of Number 11 as macho bullshit. Clive Lewis, another Labour MP, argued that the UK cannot claim global climate leadership while approving new oilfields based on penciled-in tax receipts. He noted these figures are operator estimates rather than actual Treasury revenue.

Analysis by the campaign group Uplift found that tax take from Rosebank would probably be limited. They suggested this could be outweighed by tax breaks and incentives for development and decommissioning. Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, said approving new drilling leaves public services hostage to oil prices and taxpayers on the hook for decommissioning costs. MPs expect a parliamentary rebellion on Rosebank, unlike Jackdaw, which was accepted for domestic gas consumption.