There are already reports of a split with Chancellor John Healey and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds keen for drilling to start against opposition from Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband and Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh.

The remarks to Chopper’s Political Podcast lay bare the pressure the Prime Minister is under from his own backbenchers to deliver the “pragmatic” approach towards drilling in the North Sea which he promised US President Donald Trump in September.

The Labour Government is bound by a 2024 manifesto commitment not to allow new oil and gas fields to be drilled in the North Sea.

Ministers plan to write it into law in coming months.

However, the ban does not cover the Jackdaw gas field – where ministers allowed drilling last – or the Rosebank oil field, which is estimated to hold around 300 million to 500 million barrels of oil.

Asked if the number of Labour MPs who wanted Mr Burnham to green light Rosebank, Mr Yemm said: “It’s almost certainly in that area. It’s really hard to put a number on it. But I do believe that there is strong support for this, and it is based on pragmatism. Support for British jobs, British workers and our own efforts in the North Sea. And I think when I talk to my voters in Mansfield, they find it very difficult to understand why we would be importing oil and gas for decades to come when we can drill for our own and use our own, support our own workforce in the North Sea. The tax revenues that we get from that support in our energy security and potentially lower prices. This will make a somewhat modest contribution to energy security and also to slightly lower prices.”

Jackdaw could deliver around six per cent of the UK’s gas production and provide enough fuel to heat the equivalent of 1.4 million homes. The Conservatives first granted permission for drilling of the field – 150 miles east of Aberdeen – in 2022, but the project was ruled unlawful after a court challenge by climate activists.

Mr Yemm added: “If you think about Jackdaw… It’s somewhat cheaper than having to import liquefied gas from the United States. There’s no transport cost. In fact, emissions will be lower as well.”

No10 has insisted the approval decision for the Rosebank oil field remains an independent, quasi-judicial process led by Ms Fahnbulleh.

A Government review into support for car makers trying to hit a target to ensure that 80 per cent of all cars sold by 2030 are electric is due to report early next year.

Mr Yemm, whose constituency is near to Toyota’s Burnaston car plant, told the podcast he was “optimistic” the mandated proportion could fall to as low as 50 per cent of new vehicles being electric.

He said: “I hope that we’ll get all the way to 50 per cent.

in this change. But any progress is good on this, and it puts us in a stronger position.”

Mr Yemmadded: “My perspective is, of course, there is a trade-off in emissions here – we have to understand that. But you cannot put consumers in a position where they’re not able to purchase these vehicles or utilise them properly. What we don’t want to do as a result of the EV mandate is really make the UK car market perfect for Chinese manufacturers and other manufacturers. That is a real big problem for us. I think that we need to protect domestic industry. And look, if we have to get to our target on electrification slightly more slowly, but we’re able to protect, UK jobs and UK industry – I think that’s a pragmatic judgement.”

Watch Chopper’s Political Podcast in full above, or listen to it on Spotify, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

Andy Burnham Under Mounting Pressure as 100 Labour MPs ‘Want UK to Start Drilling for Rosebank Oil’

Andy Burnham is facing growing political pressure over Britain’s energy policy as an increasing number of Labour MPs call for the government to reconsider its opposition to developing the controversial Rosebank oilfield in the North Sea. Around 100 Labour MPs are reportedly concerned about the consequences of restricting domestic oil and gas production, arguing that Britain must protect its energy security, support employment and reduce its dependence on imported fuel. The disagreement has exposed divisions within the Labour Party over the country’s transition towards renewable energy and the economic consequences of pursuing ambitious climate targets.

The Rosebank oilfield, located west of Shetland, is one of the largest undeveloped oil and gas discoveries in the United Kingdom. Its potential development has become a symbol of the wider disagreement between environmental priorities and economic realities. Supporters believe that allowing production to proceed could generate investment, protect skilled jobs and provide additional domestic energy supplies. Opponents, however, argue that expanding fossil fuel production would undermine Britain’s climate commitments and make it more difficult to achieve net-zero emissions.

For Burnham, the controversy represents a difficult political challenge. He must balance the government’s environmental ambitions with growing concerns about energy prices, industrial competitiveness and the future of Britain’s oil and gas workforce.

Labour MPs Demand a Rethink on Rosebank

The growing opposition within Labour reflects concerns that Britain’s energy strategy may be moving too quickly away from domestic oil and gas production.

Around 100 Labour MPs are reportedly calling for a reconsideration of the government’s position on Rosebank. Their concerns centre on the possibility that restricting domestic production could leave Britain increasingly dependent on imported energy.

Many of these MPs represent constituencies with strong connections to traditional industries, manufacturing and energy production. They argue that workers in these sectors should not be expected to bear the economic costs of the energy transition without realistic alternatives.

The MPs also believe that Britain should make use of its existing natural resources while developing renewable energy infrastructure.

Their argument is that domestic production could help maintain employment, support supply chains and generate tax revenues for public services.

However, the government must consider whether developing a new oilfield would provide sufficient long-term economic benefits when Britain is simultaneously attempting to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels.

The disagreement illustrates the growing difficulty of maintaining political unity over energy policy.

Why Rosebank Is So Important

Rosebank is a major oil and gas discovery in the North Sea, west of Shetland. It has attracted considerable attention because of its estimated reserves and potential contribution to the British energy industry.

The development could involve substantial investment in offshore infrastructure, engineering services and supporting industries.

Supporters argue that the project could create employment opportunities for engineers, construction workers, technicians and other skilled professionals.

The development could also provide additional revenues for companies operating in the North Sea and generate tax income for the government.

Britain has a long history of offshore oil and gas production, particularly in Scotland and the surrounding North Sea. The industry has supported thousands of jobs and contributed significantly to the country’s industrial development.

However, production from existing fields is declining, creating concerns about the future of the domestic energy supply chain.

Supporters of Rosebank believe that refusing to develop new resources could accelerate the decline of the industry and make Britain more dependent on foreign suppliers.

Critics counter that the oil produced would enter international markets and would not necessarily translate into lower energy bills for British households.

This distinction is important because domestic production does not automatically guarantee cheaper electricity or petrol.

Energy Security and Britain’s Dependence on Imports

Energy security has become an increasingly important political issue following international conflicts and disruptions to global energy markets.

Britain remains exposed to fluctuations in international oil and gas prices. Although the country has developed substantial renewable energy capacity, fossil fuels continue to play an important role in its energy system.

Supporters of Rosebank argue that maintaining domestic production would help reduce the risks associated with dependence on overseas suppliers.

They believe Britain should avoid becoming excessively reliant on energy imports, particularly during periods of international instability.

The argument is particularly relevant for industries that require reliable energy supplies, including chemicals, manufacturing, transport and heavy industry.

However, opponents argue that long-term energy security depends on accelerating investment in renewable electricity, battery storage and improved electricity networks.

They believe that continuing to develop new fossil fuel projects could divert investment away from technologies that offer a more sustainable future.

The government therefore faces a strategic decision about how to maintain reliable energy supplies while reducing carbon emissions.

The Economic Consequences for British Workers

One of the strongest arguments in favour of Rosebank concerns employment.

The North Sea oil and gas industry has supported generations of skilled workers, particularly in Scotland and communities connected to offshore engineering.

Companies involved in exploration, drilling, transportation and maintenance depend on a complex network of suppliers and specialist contractors.

If domestic production declines too rapidly, these businesses could face serious difficulties.

Supporters of Rosebank argue that continued investment would provide opportunities for workers to transfer their existing skills into other energy projects.

They also warn that Britain could lose valuable engineering expertise if companies move their operations to countries with more favourable investment conditions.

However, the transition towards renewable energy could also create significant employment opportunities.

Offshore wind, hydrogen production, carbon capture and electricity infrastructure all require skilled workers.

The challenge is ensuring that employees in traditional industries receive adequate training and financial support to move into new sectors.

For many workers, the debate is not simply about oil versus renewable energy. It is about whether the government has a credible plan to protect employment and maintain industrial communities during the transition.

Environmental Concerns Cannot Be Ignored

Despite the economic arguments, Rosebank has attracted strong opposition from environmental organisations.

Critics argue that developing a new offshore oilfield would produce additional greenhouse gas emissions and could make Britain’s climate objectives more difficult to achieve.

They also question whether investing billions of pounds in new fossil fuel infrastructure is consistent with the government’s commitment to achieving net zero.

Another important issue concerns the emissions generated when the oil extracted from Rosebank is eventually consumed.

Environmental campaigners argue that the climate impact must be considered across the entire production and consumption process rather than focusing exclusively on emissions from offshore operations.

There are also concerns about the potential environmental consequences of offshore drilling, including accidental spills and damage to marine ecosystems.

Supporters of the project argue that Britain should maintain high environmental standards and that domestic production could have different emissions characteristics from imported alternatives.

Nevertheless, the environmental consequences require independent assessment and cannot simply be dismissed by economic arguments.

The government must consider both the immediate economic benefits and the long-term environmental costs.

Andy Burnham Faces a Difficult Political Balancing Act

The disagreement over Rosebank could create considerable political problems for Andy Burnham.

His government must maintain the support of Labour MPs who are concerned about employment and industrial decline while also satisfying supporters of its ambitious environmental programme.

If the government refuses to reconsider its position, it risks deepening divisions among Labour representatives in constituencies connected to traditional energy industries.

However, approving new oilfield development could create criticism from environmental campaigners and politicians who believe that the government is weakening its climate commitments.

Burnham must therefore explain how Britain can protect its energy security without abandoning its environmental responsibilities.

A possible approach would involve a more balanced energy strategy that supports existing domestic energy capabilities while accelerating investment in renewable alternatives.

Such an approach would require clear long-term planning, substantial infrastructure investment and realistic employment policies.

The government must also provide certainty for businesses, which need predictable regulations before committing billions of pounds to major energy projects.

Could Rosebank Lower Energy Bills?

One of the most important questions for ordinary households is whether developing Rosebank would make energy more affordable.

Supporters believe additional domestic production could strengthen energy security and reduce dependence on imports.

However, Britain’s oil and gas markets are connected to international prices. Consequently, increasing domestic production would not necessarily result in significantly lower household bills.

Oil prices are influenced by global supply and demand, geopolitical developments and decisions made by major producing countries.

Gas prices are similarly affected by international markets and the availability of alternative supplies.

Therefore, the economic benefits of Rosebank may be more closely connected to employment, investment, government revenues and industrial activity than to immediate reductions in household energy bills.

The government must communicate these distinctions clearly to avoid creating unrealistic expectations.

If ministers promise cheaper energy without explaining the limitations of domestic production, public confidence could suffer.

The Future of Britain’s Energy Strategy

The Rosebank controversy raises a fundamental question about how Britain should manage its transition towards a low-carbon economy.

A successful strategy must provide reliable energy supplies, protect consumers and support economic growth while meeting environmental commitments.

Renewable energy will undoubtedly play an important role, particularly offshore wind and solar power.

However, Britain also needs investment in electricity storage, transmission networks and technologies capable of maintaining reliable supplies when renewable generation is insufficient.

The future of the North Sea industry must also be considered carefully.

Workers with decades of experience in offshore engineering possess valuable skills that could contribute to both traditional energy production and emerging technologies.

The government should develop a realistic industrial strategy that provides these workers with genuine opportunities rather than simply promising that renewable energy will replace every existing job.

The decision over Rosebank should therefore form part of a wider discussion about Britain’s long-term energy security and economic competitiveness.

Conclusion

Andy Burnham is facing growing pressure from within his own Labour Party as approximately 100 MPs reportedly call for Britain to reconsider its position on the Rosebank oilfield. Their concerns reflect wider anxieties about energy security, employment, industrial competitiveness and the future of the North Sea oil and gas industry.

Supporters believe developing Rosebank could attract investment, protect skilled employment and maintain Britain’s domestic energy capabilities. Opponents argue that expanding fossil fuel production risks undermining climate commitments and diverting resources from renewable energy.

Neither economic growth nor environmental protection can be ignored. Britain needs an energy strategy that recognises the importance of both.

For Burnham, the immediate challenge is to demonstrate that his government understands the concerns of workers, businesses and households while maintaining a credible long-term environmental programme.

Ultimately, the future of Rosebank will be an important test of Britain’s ability to balance energy security, economic prosperity and climate responsibility. The government must make decisions based on transparent evidence, realistic financial assessments and the long-term interests of the British public.