Rosebank Oil Field

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

11:52

Asked by

[Lord Moynihan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the exploration of the Rosebank oil field, following its development being accounted for in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook published on 28 October 2026.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Curran) (Lab)]

The OBR makes assumptions about future oil and gas production in order to forecast tax receipts. It uses the North Sea Transition Authority’s projections, which include potential production from potential new fields, including Rosebank, and future discoveries. It is therefore normal for the Government’s future revenue forecasts to include both current and potential future oil and gas projects. Rosebank, for example, has been included since at least 2019. This in no way reflects the Energy Secretary’s independent decision on the project, which will be made through a quasi-judicial process, taking into account all relevant factors in the case. It will not surprise the noble Lord to hear me say that I am unable to comment further on individual projects and that the Energy Secretary will be making a decision on whether to grant consent or not in due course, in the normal way.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Amey, Acteon and Buckthorn. The legislation governing the OBR gives it an explicit, legally binding right to access information and seek assistance from government departments. When it is uncertain, it says so. However, what it says on pages 93 and 94 is as clear as crystal. The projection for oil and gas receipts,

“includes production from currently producing fields (including Jackdaw), and the NSTA’s estimate of production from development of new fields, which includes Rosebank”—

so there is no prevarication and no rider, and it is specifically named.

At today’s oil prices and with current reserve estimates, it is likely that the tax take could be north of £10 billion for the life of the field. Can the Minister say why it has taken over a year for the Government to announce the decision to produce Rosebank, with the Secretary of State stating to the Guardian that she is “leaning towards” refusing Rosebank when the words of the Chancellor this morning in the context of Jackdaw were:

“I really welcome the decision … It’s common sense. It’s practical. It adds to our energy security. It produces revenue”—

all of which are equally applicable to Rosebank?

Does the Minister agree that if these figures are wrong, then the OBR, despite its right to consult DESNZ, should bin its projections and rewrite them? Alternatively, should not Parliament be informed first when the Government make an announcement, especially when backing the Conservative campaign to approve Rosebank and back Scottish workers—indeed, over 1,000 Scottish workers and their families?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a number of points. In terms of what he says about the OBR, I have to re-emphasise the points that I have made, that it is a normal process for the Government’s future revenue forecast to include both current and potential oil and gas receipts, and it has been included since 2019. However, the noble Lord went on to make a number of other points.

The Chancellor indeed said that Jackdaw was common sense—I think I used that very phrase myself when I was at the Dispatch Box earlier this week. I have to emphasise that we have had a legal challenge through this process—the noble Lord’s former Government will understand that, because the Court of Session said that scope 3 emissions had to be taken into account, so we have had to revisit that. I want to be as clear as I can be that this is quasi-judicial and I do not wish to jeopardise that in any way whatever. I take the point the noble Lord made; I am under no illusions about the Conservative Party’s view on this is—it has been pointed out to me on countless occasions. I want to just leave it at that. I am sure as the questions develop, we may go into a bit of a party-political debate, but at the moment I just want to emphasise the quasi-judicial nature of the Rosebank decision.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, further to that point, will my noble friend confirm that, if this decision is made on a political basis and not on the facts for and against going ahead, there could be another legal challenge, which would delay it for a further two years and which would certainly not be of any benefit to the people of Scotland?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

That was very well said, for once—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I do not mean that disrespectfully. I mean more that my noble friend usually challenges me in his questions, not that he does not put his case well; humble apologies for that if it was inappropriate. My noble friend makes the point very well that the decision is quasi-judicial and all the factors will be—and must be—taken into account. If not, they are bound to be legally challenged. We know that there are stakeholders with great interest on all sides of this decision. I counsel those who are against and those who are for Rosebank to think about that, because it may jeopardise the future if we do not get the legal process right.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the earlier answer she provided to give clarity on the OBR forecasts. However, separate from that decision, does she agree that 90% of Rosebank’s oil reserves would be destined for international markets and would be sold at global market prices, providing little or no benefit to UK consumers?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Earl Russell (LD)]

Does the Minister also agree that the 254 million tonnes of scope 3 CO₂ emissions will be equivalent to 70% of the UK’s annual emissions in 2024 and seem very incompatible with our carbon budgets?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I have to make the same point again: I cannot be tempted into making any comment about that. The noble Earl made his point and it is on the record. I heard some challenges to him and some support for him; that is on the record.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, did not the Chancellor really give the game away yesterday when he referred to Jackdaw and accidentally let the truth out, which was that the Energy Secretary was opposed to it, but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said yes? Is not that exactly what we are going to see with the Rosebank decision? The Energy Secretary is against it, but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor know it is the right thing to do, that is what the Government are going to do, and if they do the right thing, we will support them.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I understand the process and I understand politics. I understand why the noble Lord is making that point. But I have to say that it is quasi-judicial, and I can absolutely guarantee, because I know the Energy Secretary very well, that she has not made the decision, she will make the decision on the facts, and the Government will stand by that decision.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that this process occurred under previous Conservative governments and that that really is not important in this discussion? She is quite right, of course, to say that the Secretary of State will make the decision in her own time, exactly as a previous Conservative Secretary of State would do. All I would say to her is that I hope the Secretary of State realises how important it is for Britain not to encourage other people to extend the exploitation of oil, because we are fighting a battle against climate change which is crucially important for our children and grandchildren.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I never thought I would ever find myself saying this, but I have listened to the noble Lord’s speeches on climate change and have had a very positive response to them. I think he makes very significant contributions on climate change and pay tribute to the work that he has done. I will reference the Jackdaw decision because I do not want to reference the Rosebank decision, but the Government are very clear that we are maintaining our commitment to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster. It is entirely consistent with our commitment to building clean energy, and we remain committed to understanding and explaining to the British people the threat of climate change and the way that it will impact on their lives. It is happening now. We need to adapt, we need to mitigate now and we need to get off the fossil fuel roller coaster. I recognise the arguments that the noble Lord has put so well in this Chamber about that.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

The Minister has kept saying, as have the Government, that this issue is quasi-judicial. Would she explain why? A judicial decision was made in the Scottish courts about a year ago. The duty of the Government is to make a factual decision, taking into account a judicial decision already made. That cannot be regarded as quasi-judicial.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I answer the noble Lord with some degree of trepidation, because I know of his great expertise in this matter. My understanding is, and I have been told categorically by officials, that it is quasi-judicial because, given the range of factors that the Secretary of State has to take into account on this, it could be opened up to a court challenge. I am happy to further explore this matter so that in future I give a more adequate legal answer to the noble Lord.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I ask a very simple question of the Minister. Given what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said about what the OBR has stated, can she confirm therefore that if Rosebank does not go ahead, the Government’s fiscal headroom will be much reduced?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

The OBR will have to republish the figures if Rosebank does not go ahead, and that will need to be addressed.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that perhaps noble Lords opposite should be a little more careful and a little nuanced in their interpretation of the OBR report? It did indeed, for the reasons that the Minister set out, include both Rosebank and Jackdaw in those assessments, but the overall assessment was that receipts from North Sea oil revenues and taxation would decline, as they have over the last 20 years, in the next five years to zero. Is it not really important that we concentrate on the future, and could the Minister tell me what progress we are making—it was mentioned in the Budget papers—on that important issue that would save consumers money, delinking the price of electricity from the price of gas?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for pointing out that that is what the OBR actually says about that.

[Noble Lords]

It is not.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

Well, there is a discussion going on across the Benches at the moment, and we will return to that, no doubt, if there is disagreement about it. I share that understanding with the noble Baroness, and that is what I have been briefed. She is absolutely right about the importance of delinking, because, fundamentally, we all know that the North Sea is a declining basin and that that is something we have to come to terms with. I understand the politics of what the Conservative Party is trying to do here, but as I have often said at this Dispatch Box, the Tory Party is in utter denial about what we face in terms of climate change, and as a country we have to come to terms with it.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I just point out that there are some nodding on the Conservative Benches who agree with that. The Conservative Party is in utter denial and broken the consensus on that. I said before that I think it is a dereliction of duty not to address the interests of the British people on that matter. That is why our move to clean energy and delinking is so important. As I said earlier, the price of electricity was determined at 90% and it is 60% today. The Chancellor yesterday referenced the contracts for difference process that will keep us maintaining that momentum to delinking. It is fundamental to our policy going forward.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, a lot of the focus on the Rosebank decision has been on climate change, naturally, but this is a development at a depth of over one kilometre, the deepest ever proposed on the UK continental shelf. The remote location, depth and harsh Atlantic conditions make it a very difficult site. A major oil spill could have serious impact on at least 16 UK marine protected areas. Can the Minister reassure me that that is really seriously being taken into account?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint the noble Baroness, because I just do not want to be dragged into any detail about the decision. I will absolutely assert that when the Secretary of State makes her decision, she will be given a range of information that I know that she will read and study carefully. She will make the decision in the round and will address that. As I said to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, those issues are on the record in this House.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I do not know about other noble Lords, but I would welcome a little bit of financial context on this, following the question by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. When I look at the OBR document, it is very hard to understand what the financial difference is. It refers to, with Rosebank, a 10% decline in revenues over the period and, without it, a 14% decline over the period. What does that mean in terms of pounds and pence over the financial forecast period?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I was going to say thank you for that question, but I do not know if I do, to be honest. The OBR does not actually make forecasts. It recognises the potential tax receipts for Rosebank, but it does not actually give pounds and pence forecasts for it.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, this quasi-judicial nature has been shown to be a quasi-excuse. I can assure the Minister, having taken quasi-judicial decisions, that they do not need to take a year. If the Government decide that it is illegal under the present law to go ahead with Rosebank, why do not they change the law, and as soon as possible?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I can only assert what I have already stated. It is our understanding—my understanding, certainly—that this is quasi-judicial. I need to understand some of the points being made in greater depth. It was raised at the Court of Session. We do not want to go through another legal process again. We have to give it proper consideration. That means that these decisions take time, and we want to be absolutely clear that when a decision is made, it is the final decision and does not end up in the courts again.