New environment rules end 'pause' on oil and gas licence applications
Offshore oil and gas developers in fields including the controversial Rosebank well near Shetland are being given 'clarity' to kickstart applications with new environmental rules.
The UK Government's new guidance follows last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling which forced developers to take into account the effect of burning fossil fuels after extraction.
Labour energy minister Michael Shanks, in Aberdeen today, told the Press and Journal: 'This gives clarity about what the way forward is for oil and gas.
'Obviously it's lifting the pause on applications into that process but each individual application will now be considered on its merits.
'It's a step forward in ensuring the full environmental impact of extraction is considered.'
The Labour MP said he will not be drawn on specific applications.
Developers can submit applications to extract oil and gas in fields which are already licenced.
These types of developments have been on pause since the so-called Finch Supreme Court judgement last year.
The new rules do not give a green light to projects including Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea or Rosebank oil field off Shetland.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband will be able to consider the significance of a project's environmental impact, while taking into account the economic impact and other implications.
The Labour government says the latest step demonstrates support for the energy industry a week after supporting carbon capture at St Fergus gas terminal near Peterhead.
Describing a transition from oil and gas, Mr Shanks added: 'It's 50 years this month since the first oil and gas started coming out of the North Sea. We should be proud of that.
'It will continue to play a part in our economy for decades to come. But all the evidence points to the fact it has been in decline for many years.'
Andrew Bowie, the Tory shadow Scottish Secretary, said the future of UK energy security is at a tipping point.
'Since the start of the year, I have been holding events and meetings for North East oil and gas leaders as well as employees,' he said.
'Most agree that Labour policy is hastening the decline of the North Sea, far faster than any responsible government would.'
Environmental lawyer Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, said the new guidance cannot have come at a more critical time.
'In the case of the Rosebank oil field, which Equinor can now seek reapproval for, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the project is incompatible with the UK's climate commitments,' she said.
'Whether or not this government then follows the science and rejects Rosebank will be a real test of its climate credibility.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Labour whip resigns over proposed welfare cuts
In a letter informing the Prime Minister of her resignation, the MP for Lewisham North said she understood 'the need to address the ever-increasing welfare bill' but did not believe the proposed cuts 'should be part of the solution'. She said: 'I have wrestled with whether I should resign or remain in the Government and fight for change from within. (1/2) With a heavy heart, I have written to the Prime Minister to tender my resignation as a whip. Whilst I will continue to support the government in delivering the change the country so desperately needs, I cannot vote in favour of the proposed reforms to disability benefits. — Vicky Foxcroft 💙 (@vickyfoxcroft) June 19, 2025 'Sadly it is now (sic) seems that we are not going to get the changes I desperately wanted to see. 'I therefore tender my resignation as I know I will not be able to do the job that is required of me and whip – or indeed vote – for reforms which include cuts to disabled people's finances.' Ms Foxcroft, who previously served as shadow minister for disabled people, is the first frontbencher to resign over the proposed benefit cuts, and the second to go over policy issues following Anneliese Dodds' decision to quit as development minister over cuts to the aid budget. Rebel Labour MPs welcomed her decision, with Hartlepool's Jonathan Brash saying he had the 'utmost respect' for her 'principled stand' and Crewe and Nantwich's Connor Naismith saying it 'must have been an incredibly difficult decision but she should be commended for standing by her principles'. Responding to Ms Foxcroft's resignation, a Government spokesperson said: 'This Labour Government was elected to deliver change. The broken welfare system we inherited is failing the sick and most vulnerable and holding too many young people back. It is fair and responsible to fix it. 'Our principled reforms will ensure those who can work should, that those who want to work are properly supported, and that those with most severe disabilities and health conditions are protected.' Sir Keir Starmer has faced a backlash from some Labour MPs over proposals to reform the welfare system expected to save up to £5 billion a year. Legislation introduced into Parliament on Wednesday includes a tightening of the criteria for the main disability payment in England, personal independence payment (Pip). Ministers also want to cut the sickness related element of universal credit (UC), and delay access to it, so only those aged 22 and over can claim it. The package of reforms is aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work, but dozens of Labour rebels said last month that the proposals were 'impossible to support'. Pip is a benefit aimed at helping with extra living costs if someone has a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability and difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around because of their condition. The latest data, published on Tuesday, showed 3.7 million people in England and Wales claimed Pip, up from 2.05 million in 2019, with teenagers and young adults making up a growing proportion of claimants. Around 800,000 people are set to lose out on the benefit under the Government's proposals, according to an impact assessment published alongside Wednesday's legislation. The impact assessment also confirmed a previous estimate that some 250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, are likely to fall into relative poverty after housing costs in 2029/2030, although the Government repeated that this does not take into account the potentially positive impact of £1 billion annual funding by then for measures to support people into work. Changes to universal credit are expected to see an estimated 2.25 million current recipients of the health element impacted, with an average loss of £500 per year. But the Government said around 3.9 million households not on the UC health element are expected to have an average annual gain of £265 from the increase in the standard UC allowance. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the legislation 'marks the moment we take the road of compassion, opportunity and dignity'. But Neil Duncan-Jordan, the Labour MP for Poole and one of the backbenchers opposed to the change, said the Government was 'rushing through' the changes and urged ministers to think again.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Iraq made Blair a pariah – Starmer risks the same with Iran
Then, as now, America was acting as virtually a rogue nation giving no thought to the different opinions of its allies. Then, as now, the American president had a skewed vision of the situation in that part of the world and no clear idea of the forces which would be unleashed by his actions and how to restore peace. Then, as now, Labour were in power and had demonstrated they were willing to support America in any course of action they decided upon no matter what the consequences might be. Today those consequences look even more terrifying than they appeared when America, with support from Britain's armed forces, invaded Iraq in 2003. This time the threat of nuclear annihilation hangs more heavily in the air. READ MORE: Casual threats of annihilation from Trump are not reality TV stunts And this time America's president is even more unpredictable and reckless than George W Bush, even more unlikely to apply logic to any decision as to his future course of action. Bush's justification for taking action against Iraq had nothing directly to do with the terrorist atrocity of 9/11. There was no suggestion, far less evidence, that Iraq was in any way linked to the plane hijackings which led to the demolition of the north and south towers of the World Trade Center in New York. America was so desperate to take action – any action – in what it had dubbed the 'global war against terror' in the aftermath of 9/11 that it alighted on the claim that Iraq had in its armoury weapons of mass destruction that posed a potential threat to the US and its allies. There was, in fact, no evidence to back up that claim. Most of the Western world regarded Bush's claim with justified scepticism. However, Britain pledged its support. It's important to remember that in Bush's State of the Union address in 2002, in which the president started to put together the case for action to remove Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, he railed against the so-called 'axis of evil' which included Iran as well as Iraq. The US grudge against Iran has deep roots so it's no surprise that it could one day lead to the possibility of military action. Americans have been easily persuaded by presidential warmongering even without any compelling evidence it was needed. Even before that State of the Union address, a survey suggested that 73% favoured military action to oust Hussein. The government was not willing to let the small matter of there being no evidence of the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction deter it from waging war. Then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN: 'The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Hussein] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.' The British people were less easily fooled, but, alas, the same cannot be said for their government at Westminster. Its Prime Minister Tony Blair ignored the millions in his country marching against the invasion of Iraq and ploughed on regardless. There was some opposition within his own party. Robin Cook, then the leader of the Commons and a former foreign secretary, resigned from Blair's government in March 2003 over Iraq. He said at the time: 'I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support.' However, Blair brushed off the resignation and most of his ministers and Labour MPs watched in acquiescence as the invasion proceeded. At the time, the Prime Minister was fond of telling us that if we could see the evidence that was on his desk proving that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction then we too would back his decision. Some time after Hussein was deposed and executed, when the weapons of mass destruction theory had been well and truly dismissed, I watched Blair tell a private meeting of Scottish editors that there was at that time no further evidence of the existence of those weapons but he still supported the invasion anyway. Today I'm still not clear what motivated Blair. READ MORE: The facts are clear. So why won't the BBC report on Israel's nuclear weapons? Did he really believe Iraq posed a threat to the rest of the world, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Or did he support Bush in a bid to cement the relationship between his government and Bush's Republican regime? A Guardian column by Steve Richards queried this interpretation. He suggested that both Blair's support for the invasion and David Cameron's decision to call the Brexit referendum were the result of a lack of prime ministerial depth and experience. Whatever the answer, history will judge. The big question now is whether Keir Starmer will duplicate Blair's blind allegiance to a US president's decision, no matter how crazy. And secondly, will anyone in his government have the guts to advocate standing up to Donald Trump and tell him that joining Israel's bombing of Iran is not only immoral but will move the world closer to nuclear destruction? The answer to that first question looks dangerously close to Starmer hitching his future of Trump's insistence on supporting Israel in all matters, from the unrelentingly inhumane genocide in Gaza to buying into the president's paranoia about Iran's alleged closeness to developing nuclear weapons. That claim has already led to a split between Trump and his director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb. The president's annoyance was clear in his dismissal of her opinion this week, when he snapped 'I don't care what she said.' Starmer said on Tuesday that Trump has said nothing to indicate he would direct US missile strikes on Iran. Nothing that is apart from confirming on Wednesday that he has approved a plan to do just that. He told CBS that he has not yet made a decision on whether to enact that plan. The truth is that no one, probably including the president himself, knows what Trump will do next. Things don't look good. According to a 'senior intelligence source', the president has held off from strikes to see how Iran responds to his demands for 'unconditional surrender', which seems to translate as an abandonment of its nuclear programme. The heat was turned up even further yesterday when Israel's defence minister said Iran's supreme leader 'can no longer be allowed to exist' after an Iranian missile attack hit a hospital. It's hard to overestimate the damage done to Israel's claims of moral superiority in this conflict by the damage caused by its missiles hitting hospitals in Gaza. What is clear is that Israel and Iran are nowhere near a solution to their dispute and the pressure is mounting on Trump to make a decision. Starmer has admittedly advocated further negotiations rather than American bombs but if Trump goes ahead with military action it looks more likely that Britain will support him, at the very least by allowing him to use the Diego Garcia UK military base in the Indian Ocean. The record of Labour MPs – and particularly Labour MSPs in the Scottish Parliament – of standing up to their Prime Minister's folly on other matters is poor. READ MORE: David Lammy heads to US as Donald Trump considers whether to strike Iran The party's leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, has urged Starmer to do more for Scotland after its by-election win in Hamilton but any criticism of his performance after major U-turns on election promises has been either missing or heavily coded. That's not going to change if he moves to back Trump's action. Blair's support for Bush moved many former Labour supporters to ditch the party and embrace the SNP and independence because of the urgent need for Scotland to develop its own foreign policy. That urgency has increased rather than faded. John Swinney really has to capture that renewed urgency with real passage and focus, together with an indication of a route to independence, at the SNP's national council meeting tomorrow.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Barrhead Travel story in Glasgow surely offers some lessons
And it was somewhat astonishing to hear the price of a week's holiday in Majorca in 1979 was £50. However, what really hit home as the story of the first 50 years was told was the astute and entrepreneurial decision-making of Barrhead Travel's founder, the late Bill Munro, at various key stages of the development of the business. These included, from Barrhead Travel's earliest days, opening when others were closed, something that was a driver of the establishment of the business in the first place, and Mr Munro's embracing of the internet when it brought major change to the sector. In many ways, it appears Mr Munro built the business by making the right decisions and doing relatively simple things very well indeed. That might sound straightforward enough. However, that is from the position of reflecting on the story of Barrhead Travel from where it is now, having observed the various key stages. What is clear is that Mr Munro had tremendous vision, assessing trends in the sector and reacting shrewdly and at times boldly. The wisdom of the decisions and strategy that paved the way for the creation of what is now a major UK-wide travel agent, from a single shop in Barrhead on the outskirts of Glasgow in 1975, might seem apparent enough with hindsight. However, Mr Munro did not have the benefit of hindsight as he navigated huge changes in the industry. He did just fine without it, achieving a degree of success that is remarkable. Other major events in Barrhead Travel's history - highlighted by president Jacqueline Dobson at last Thursday's dinner – include the responses of the business to the collapse of major package holiday and airline company Thomas Cook and to the coronavirus pandemic. Barrhead Travel has also undergone a change of ownership. It was sold to US-based Travel Leaders Group in 2018, and was by that time one of the UK's biggest travel agents. Barrhead Travel celebrated its 50th birthday at a dinner at Glasgow's Old Fruitmarket last week. (Image: Barrhead Travel) Travel Leaders Group is part of Internova Travel Group, which has its head office in New York. Mr Munro died aged 80 in October 2024. A Barrhead Travel spokesman said then: 'It's been almost 50 years since Bill Munro founded Barrhead Travel. His bold vision fundamentally changed the landscape for high street travel agents across the country. He made a tremendous contribution to the overall travel industry as well as becoming an influential figure within the Scottish business community.' This legacy was plain at Barrhead Travel's 50th birthday dinner, which was attended by the founder's daughter, Sharon Munro, who stepped down as president of the business at the end of 2018. Another legacy which was evident was a focus on people within Barrhead Travel, which employs more than 560 people. Read more While the many opportunities given to young people by the business over years and decades through its apprenticeship approach were highlighted, what was also to the fore was the long service of staff throughout the business, including across the executive team. Far too often in the business world these days, the importance of such experience is overlooked, to the ultimate cost of companies which take such a lamentable view. Ms Dobson highlighted the length of service of many of Barrhead Travel's employees. She said: 'I started my career as an apprentice, and many of my colleagues did too.' Jacqueline Dobson has been with Barrhead Travel for 25 years. (Image: Barrhead Travel) Ms Dobson highlighted the fact that she had been with the business for 25 years. And she emphasised she was 'certainly not alone' in having been with Barrhead Travel for that length of time or longer. The business characterises its own journey as follows: 'Since it was founded in 1975, Barrhead Travel has expanded from a traditional 'bucket and spade' travel agent to a multi-faceted travel group offering bespoke holidays and cruises to all corners of the globe.' And it highlights the fact that 'in addition to its retail network which spans over 90 locations across the UK, the group has a number of specialist divisions including touring and adventure, cruise and USA'. The business has indeed come a long way, and its current US-based owner has backed the continuing expansion of Barrhead Travel. What was notable, however, was Ms Dobson's emphasis last week on how the 'heart of the business' is the same as it was 50 years ago. She said: 'While so much has changed, the heart of the business remains the same. We're here to solve problems, support our people, and ultimately deliver unforgettable holidays. 'Our resilience over the decades has only strengthened our belief in what we do. It's our people, our customers, and our communities that have shaped this journey. Celebrating 50 years is not just about looking back, it's about looking forward with confidence, staying true to our roots while continuing to evolve.' Ms Dobson declared that, as Barrhead Travel looks ahead, 'there are no signs of slowing down, with plans for continued investment and expansion on the high street as well as launching new technology'. She highlighted the fact that 'the business has had a record-breaking year, with January 2025 being the most successful month in its 50-year history'. And Ms Dobson emphasised: 'It believes its founding principles, customer service, innovation, and community are as relevant today as they were in 1975.' It is good to see the founding principles of Mr Munro 50 years ago continue to deliver growth and success for what is such a well-known Scottish business. There seemed to be a genuine warmth in the room last week from the various travel industry partners with which Barrhead Travel works. And Ms Dobson's emphasis of the degree to which the business values its people also came across passionately, in stark contrast to the kind of buzzword bingo you hear on this front from some corporates. Many might have doubted when the internet began to revolutionise travel that businesses like Barrhead Travel would continue to thrive but, while many but certainly not all of its competitors have found the journey more difficult and at times impossible, the operation founded by Mr Munro back in 1975 has gone from strength to strength. Hopefully, Barrhead Travel will continue to prosper and prove resilient through the ups and downs of future decades, and it will have the continued backing of its owner to build on the success achieved over the last 50 years.
