
Miliband to open door to North Sea drilling
Two of the North Sea's most controversial drilling projects are set to go ahead as Ed Miliband rewrites the rules on carbon emissions.
The Energy Secretary is preparing to change the law on Britain's greenhouse gas emissions, which were relied on by a court last autumn to block Equinor's Rosebank oil field, off Shetland, and Shell's Jackdaw gas field, off Aberdeen.
Such a move would pave the way for the construction of the giant oil fields, and possibly open the door for more stalled fossil fuel projects in British waters to be restarted.
The two North Sea sites, which were once described as 'climate vandalism' by Mr Miliband, were blocked after environmentalists successfully challenged their oil and gas production licences.
Courts in Scotland backed claims that Mr Miliband's predecessors were wrong to approve the projects without considering the greenhouse gas emissions the oil and gas would generate from being burnt.
The court ruling infuriated Shell and Equinor, which had already spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the projects, leading to meetings between their top executives and senior ministers.
However, the Government is expected to release a draft of its new guidance on how to assess such emissions, The Telegraphunderstands – effectively opening the door for the energy giants to regain their licences and start producing oil and gas.
Mr Miliband's Department for Energy Security and Net Zero last night refused to comment on 'speculation' but a spokesman said: 'Michael Shanks, [the junior energy minister] is in Scotland on Thursday and we will say more then.'
It is understood that the draft rules will first be subject to a consultation after which companies will be able to reapply for licences awarded before the court ruling.
Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, have both previously spoken in favour of the projects – despite Mr Miliband's past opposition.
Rosebank and Jackdaw are respectively the largest and second largest undeveloped reserves left in UK waters, and could produce oil and gas for the next two to three decades once in production.
Jackdaw, a gas field 150 miles east of Aberdeen, is expected to account for 6pc of the UK's entire gas output once it comes on stream – potentially supplying several million homes.
Rosebank, 60 miles north-west of Shetland, will produce mainly oil which will be loaded into tankers and mostly exported, with the UK gaining from the taxes it generates.
However the new rules could lead to approval for many other such developments, potentially including the giant Cambo oil field controlled by Ithaca, which is also involved in Rosebank.
This is because the legal rulings that led to Rosebank and Jackdaw being blocked also froze development of many other UK fields whose licences had been issued under the same flawed assessment system.
These are thought to include the next phase of BP's giant Clair oil field and Serica Energy's Buchan Horst field.
Martin Copeland, of Serica Energy, said he would welcome any such move by the Government.
'These legal rulings have caused a hiatus across the North Sea,' he said.
'It goes far wider than Rosebank and Jackdaw. There are many other smaller developments that have been held up, impacting the supply chain companies and all their workers.'
The Scottish judicial review into Jackdaw and Rosebank followed a previous Supreme Court ruling in a separate case brought by environmental activist Sarah Finch against Surrey county council.
Court actions
She accused the council of acting unlawfully in allowing planning permission for oil production without considering its climate impacts.
The action related to a small oil field near Gatwick airport, but the ruling in her favour had implications for the entire UK oil and gas industry.
That result was used by Greenpeace and Uplift, environmental campaign groups, to win the Scottish court actions against, respectively, Shell and Equinor.
The judge, Lord Ericht, banned production, ruling that 'the private interest of members of the public in climate change outweigh the private interest of the developers'.
That ruling prompted the two main regulators – the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning, and the North Sea Transition Authority – to pause licensing decisions while the Government drew up new rules for assessing 'Scope 3' emissions – the term for greenhouse gases generated by the end-users of oil and gas products.
Last night Ms Finch, said the Government announcement of a new assessment process was long overdue.
'It means Equinor and Shell will have to submit new applications to develop these fields taking full account of all the emissions they will generate, including from burning the oil and gas they produce,' she said. 'We want to see a robust process in full knowledge of their climate impacts.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Strangulation in pornography to be made illegal
Pornography depicting any act of strangulation is to be made illegal as part of government efforts to combat an 'epidemic' of sexual violence against women and girls. The move was recommended in a review for the Government by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, who found that porn had effectively established choking as a 'sexual norm'. She said that a belief had taken root that choking a partner during sex was 'safe' because it was not fatal, despite overwhelming evidence that there was no safe way to strangle a person. The Government has already introduced a specific offence for abusers who strangle their partners, with perpetrators facing jail sentences of up to five years. Alex Davies-Jones, the justice minister, said: 'Depicting strangulation during sex is not only dangerous, but also degrading, with real-life consequences for women. 'Cracking down on the appalling rise of strangulation pornography will protect women and send a clear signal to men and boys that misogyny will not be tolerated.' Lady Bertin, who was commissioned to carry out the review by Rishi Sunak, also recommended that harmful online porn that would be illegal on the high street should be banned. The review, published on Thursday, found that violent, harmful and misogynistic porn was common on mainstream platforms. However, the material would be judged as illegal and refused classification by the British Board of Film Classification if it was sold in shops on the high street, according to Lady Bertin's review. It comes ahead of new legally enforced rules requiring websites that host pornographic or other harmful content to have 'robust' age verification in place for UK users by July at the latest. Methods to be required include open banking, photo ID matching, facial age estimation, credit card checks, digital ID services and email-based age estimation. 'No such thing as safe strangulation' Andrea Simon, the director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW), said: ' We welcome the Government's decision to criminalise the depiction of strangulation in pornography, a move that reflects years of campaigning by EVAW and other experts who have long warned about the normalisation of violence against women and girls in online content. 'There is no such thing as safe strangulation; women cannot consent to the long-term harm it can cause, including impaired cognitive functioning and memory. Its widespread portrayal in porn is fuelling dangerous behaviours, particularly among young people. 'This is a vital step towards recognising the role violent pornography plays in shaping attitudes to women and regulating an industry which promotes and profits from violence against women. The UK's flagship Online Safety Act must now be updated to ensure online platforms are made to remove this content.'


The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
It's time every police force atoned for its homophobic witch-hunts
At the height of the Aids crisis in the 1980s, when hundreds of gay men were suffering slow, agonising deaths, the then-Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (GMP), James Anderton, denounced gay people as "swirling in a human cesspit of their own making'. His words were not mere rhetoric. Homophobia informed operational policing. GMP officers were directed to illegally harass gay venues, including the notorious raid by 23 police on Napoleon's bar in 1984. The membership list, including names and addresses, was illegally seized, and patrons were lined up against the wall and unlawfully photographed. Some had their feet deliberately stamped on. Regular police raids on the New Union pub, Rembrandt Hotel and the Clone Zone shop were acts of vindictive police harassment. Manchester police openly boasted: 'We've been trying to close these queer places for years.' However, in response to my Peter Tatchell Foundation's #ApologiseNow campaign, 21 out of the 45 Chief Constables in the UK – including the Metropolitan Police, Merseyside and Police Scotland – did just that, with many also implementing new LGBT+ supportive policies. They recognised the injustice done. In contrast, the GMP's Chief Constable, Stephen Watson, refused to apologise – as did his counterpart at West Midlands Police (WMP), Craig Guildford. They suggested that either there was no evidence of anything that justified an apology or that any claimed wrongdoing happened too long ago to matter. Their refusal is even more shocking given that GMP and WMP were historically two of the most viciously homophobic forces in the country, with gay arrest rates much higher than average. WMP compounded their insult by their double standards. They rightly apologised in 2020 to the black community for their long history of police racism, but they refuse to do the same to the LGBT+ community. On top of that, WMP had me forcibly removed from the recent Birmingham Pride parade after I criticised their refusal to apologise. They falsely claimed I did not have permission to be there and that the organisers asked for me to be removed. The latter has confirmed that both these claims were fabrications. The GMP and WMP Chief Constables have snubbed their own National Police Chiefs Council lead on LGBT+ issues. Northumbria Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine wrote to all Chief Constables over a year ago, urging them to review our request for an apology for historic anti-LGBT+ persecution. She had a good reason. In the decades before the full decriminalisation of homosexuality in England and Wales in 2003, police across the UK went out of their way to target and arrest thousands of gay and bisexual men for consenting, victimless behaviour. They went far beyond merely enforcing anti-gay laws and did so in a manner that was often illegal and sometimes violent. Couples were arrested for kissing, which was not a crime. Officers burst into private birthday parties whose partygoers were shoved and called ' f***ing queers' and 'dirty poofs'. At closing time for bars and clubs, police would harass men chatting on the pavement outside. Those who hesitated to disperse or questioned the lawfulness of police harassment were threatened and sometimes arrested and beaten up. It's little wonder that the police were reviled by many as 'queer-bashers in uniform'. In a raid on a bar in 1971, I was made to strip to my underpants in the street on a freezing cold October night. An officer squeezed my testicles until I screamed. I remember being stopped at a train station and quizzed and sneered at because I was wearing a gay badge. This was typical of the everyday petty police harassment that we endured. Police waged witch-hunts motivated by personal, and sometimes religious, prejudice against gay and bisexual men. They selected young, good-looking officers and got them to dress in a gay style, with tight-fitting jeans and leather jackets. These so-called 'pretty police' were deployed as agent provocateurs in parks and public toilets to entrap men into committing offences before a hidden squad swooped in and made arrests. Some forces had a policy of releasing the names, addresses and workplaces of arrested men to the newspapers – sackings and evictions often followed. With the stigma of a criminal conviction for a homosexual offence, many victims outed by the police had great difficulty in getting new jobs and housing. Some were beaten up, their homes and cars vandalised by homophobic mobs. Others turned to drink or endured mental breakdowns and suicide attempts. It is not an overstatement to say that lives were wrecked by the police. Twenty-four of the UK's Chief Constables have turned down my request for an apology. As well as disputing the existence of this persecution, some have claimed that these abuses happened a long time ago and that an apology would be a pointless gesture. The victims think otherwise. A formal apology would demonstrate moral leadership, humility and humanity. It would send a powerful message to those who endured oppression at the hands of the police, showing that their suffering has been heard, and that the police of today reject the abuses of the past. Apologies are not symbolic gestures. They are acts of justice. They affirm change and that the police now stand alongside the communities they once harmed. For many LGBT+ people, hearing their Chief Constable acknowledge historic mistreatment would be profoundly healing. The apologies issued so far by 21 forces have not undermined current officers but have strengthened community trust. They have helped to rebuild bridges with marginalised people, showing that policing today is informed by compassion, accountability and truth. This has boosted confidence in the police and encouraged more LGBT+ people to report hate crimes, domestic violence and sexual assaults. Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Met Police, had no hesitation in saying sorry. He acknowledged that the Met had harboured 'systems and processes…which have led to bias and discrimination…over many decades' and apologised unreservedly to those 'we have let down.' Rowley showed true leadership and won huge respect among LGBT+ people.


The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer warns of ‘real risk' in Middle East as Trump mulls bombing Iran
Sir Keir Starmer has urged Donald Trump to step back from military action against Iran which could deepen the crisis in the Middle East. The Prime Minister said there is a 'real risk of escalation' in the conflict as he urged all sides to seek a diplomatic outcome. He said there had previously been 'several rounds of discussions with the US' and 'that, to me, is the way to resolve this issue'. His comments came as Foreign Secretary David Lammy is taking the UK's plea for de-escalation to Washington, where he will meet Mr Trump's top diplomat Marco Rubio. Mr Lammy and US Secretary of State Mr Rubio will discuss the situation in the Middle East on Thursday evening. Iran and Israel continued striking each other's territory overnight as the crisis deepens. A hospital in southern Israel was hit by a missile, while a heavy water facility in Iran was targeted in the latest blow against Tehran's nuclear programme. The hospital attack led defence minister Israel Katz to say Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 'absolutely should not continue to exist' – in a sign that plans to kill him could be revived after previously being vetoed by Mr Trump. Mr Lammy's meeting in Washington comes amid speculation US involvement could require using the UK-controlled Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands. The B-2 stealth bombers based there are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which could be used against Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordo. UK Attorney General Lord Hermer is reported to have raised legal concerns about any potential British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies, something which could limit the extent of any support for the US if Mr Trump decides to act militarily. Sir Keir said: 'There's a real risk of escalation here that will impact the region, possibly beyond the region, akin to Gaza, and obviously it's already having an impact on the economy.' In relation to Lord Hermer, the Prime Minister said: 'The Attorney's advice is never disclosed by any government, but I can tell you the principle, the driving intent, which is that de-escalation. 'It's very clear: yes, we need to deal with the nuclear programme, there's no doubt about that in my mind, but it is better dealt with as a negotiated outcome. 'De-escalate and get to that point. 'There have been several rounds of discussions with the US. That, to me, is the way to resolve this issue.' Mr Lammy will be taking that message to Washington but UK officials do not know which way the unpredictable US president will go. Reports have suggested he has already approved a plan for an attack but has so far not decided whether to launch it. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey called on the Government to publish Lord Hermer's advice, saying: 'The last thing we need is for the UK to be dragged into another illegal war in the Middle East by the US.' Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said: 'I don't think we can hide behind legal advice at a time of crisis and national security when we have to work alongside our biggest ally in the world, the United States, when they look to us for potentially… setting out operational activities through our own military bases.' She said the Conservative Party would support British involvement in military action against Iran if it was deemed necessary. Iran has insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful, but it is the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90% and far in excess of the levels required for power stations. A No 10 spokesman said: 'We have been very clear that Iran's nuclear programme has never been as advanced as it is today, it is a clear threat to international security. 'But we are urging all parties to show restraint and return to diplomacy. We are clear that Iran must not develop a nuclear weapon and we will use all diplomatic means available to deliver this.' The Government is also under pressure to step-up support for Britons stranded in Israel after the airspace was closed, a measure Benjamin Netanyahu's administration is under pressure to lift from countries eager to get their citizens home. The Foreign Office has evacuated family members of embassy staff from Israel based on a specific assessment of the risks they face, but has not provided similar transport out of Israel to other Britons. Britons have already been advised against all travel to Israel and those already in the country have been urged to register their presence with the embassy. US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said officials are working to get 'military, commercial, charter flights and cruise ships' for an evacuation of Americans. Asked about the difference between the US support and the UK approach, the No 10 spokesman said: 'There's a huge amount of work being done in the background on contingency planning. It is a fast-moving situation and we keep all our advice and planning under constant review.'