On 24th July 2026, I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) regarding the proposed Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas developments (the letter is here). As a matter of courtesy, the letter was also copied to my local MP, Mr Jon Pearce, and to the minister with responsibilities for research funding across universities, Mr Jonathan Reynolds.
Over the past few weeks, both MPs have provided lengthy replies – with their letters reproduced in full below. What is immediately apparent is that neither response reflects any meaningful engagement with the specific concerns I raised. Instead, the two letters are, aside from minor adjustments, essentially the same response – apparently reflecting a position provided by DESNZ or the Prime Minister’s office.
That raises a broader and troubling question about the role of our elected representatives. Neither MP was obliged to agree with my arguments, nor would I have expected either to possess the detailed scientific or technical expertise needed to address all the issues I raised. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to expect MPs to be experts in everything, or to have fully worked-through views on the many different issues that cross their desks. They could simply have acknowledged this and referred me to the Government’s formal position.
What I do think they should avoid, however, is presenting that political position as though it were their own considered view, particularly when they have not themselves engaged with the arguments. They can point to the Government’s position without endorsing it as their own, and they can avoid making supportive comments on matters they have not properly considered. Alternatively, they could have engaged with the substance of my letter, explaining where they agreed and, just as importantly, where and why they disagreed. Instead, I received polished but ultimately vacuous and formulaic responses that addressed none of the central concerns.
There is a real risk here of a system that makes liars of our MPs, something that could be avoided simply by being clear about what is the Government’s position and what is their own considered view. But this also raises a second question: what can we reasonably expect MPs to have considered for themselves?
It would be unreasonable to expect MPs to have a detailed view on every matter that comes before them. But on important issues central to their responsibilities, I do think we should expect them to have engaged with the substance. The UK’s repeated commitments under international climate agreements, for example, and the implications of approving yet more oil and gas production are hardly obscure or peripheral matters. They are issues on which I would expect our elected representatives to have at least a reasonably informed position.
MPs are not elected simply to reproduce the words of ministers, party officials or political leaders. If their role is merely to repeat whatever they are told to say, then what is the purpose of having constituency MPs at all? Representation must surely mean more than simply echoing the party line. Constituents elect MPs to represent them, to exercise judgement, to reflect their party’s values and, where necessary, to challenge their own party and government.
Perhaps naively, I still expect our elected representatives to demonstrate their primary allegiance to their constituents and to the public interest, rather than to the political comfort of their leaders. This does not mean agreeing with every constituent or abandoning party politics. It does, however, mean engaging honestly and with integrity, rather than hiding behind carefully drafted rhetoric and obfuscation.
I appreciate that MPs have an exceptionally demanding job and that most work very long hours under considerable pressure. But the responsibility and privilege bestowed on those elected to represent us surely requires more than loyalty to the party line. It requires independent judgement, honesty and a willingness to engage with difficult issues – including when doing so may mean disagreeing with those above them.
Trust in politicians is difficult to earn and remarkably easy to lose. Treating constituents as passive recipients of scripted political rhetoric, rather than as citizens entitled to honest answers from the people elected to represent them, does little to earn or retain that trust.
The response I received from Jon Pearce
Thank you for getting in touch about drilling for North Sea oil and gas, and for sharing your views. I know there has been a lot of speculation on this issue recently, so I appreciate the opportunity to reaffirm my commitment to supporting a fair, secure and well-managed transition away from fossil fuels in the North Sea.
Oil and gas will continue to play a role in our energy system for decades to come and it is important that we take a pragmatic approach to this issue. At the same time, it is crucial that we continue to meet our climate ambitions. That is why I am proud to have stood on a manifesto that committed to making use of existing fields throughout their remaining lifetime, while ending new licences for exploring new oil and gas fields.
I welcome the Government’s approach to implementing this pledge, which recognises the reality of the continued role of oil and gas in our energy mix, while protecting jobs, maintaining our energy security, creating new opportunities for the future and keeping us at the forefront of global efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. It does this by setting out how existing fields will be managed responsibly – including by allowing production where it is linked to existing fields and infrastructure – while supporting the growth of the clean energy industries of the future and the jobs that come with them.
On Rosebank and Jackdaw, the situation remains that the Government must make an impartial decision through a formal, evidence-based process. I welcome that following court rulings against the previous administration’s decision-making on this issue, this Government responded swiftly by issuing new guidance to ensure future decisions fully take environmental impacts into account. The Government will now make a final decision after assessing the significance of those impacts and balancing relevant considerations on a case by case basis. I will continue to follow this closely.
More broadly, I agree that the real solutions to Britain’s energy challenges lie in expanding renewable energy and improving the energy efficiency of our homes. That is why I continue to support the Government’s mission to deliver clean power by 2030 and to upgrade millions of homes so that they are warmer and more energy efficient.
Thank you again for contacting me about this crucial issue. I remain committed to taking responsible action on the climate and energy security while ensuring a just and secure transition in the North Sea.
Best wishes,
Jon
The response I received from Jonathan Reynolds
Thank you for getting in touch about Rosebank and North Sea oil and gas, and for sharing your views. I know there has been a lot of speculation on this issue recently, so I appreciate the opportunity to make clear that I remain committed to supporting a fair, secure and well-managed transition away from fossil fuels in the North Sea.
North Sea oil and gas will continue to play a role in our energy system for decades to come. But I agree that new fields can neither protect households from the sort of global gas price volatility we are currently seeing nor provide genuine energy security. They would also accelerate the climate crisis. That is why I am proud to have stood on a manifesto that committed to make use of existing fields throughout their remaining lifetime while ending new licences for exploring new oil and gas fields.
I welcome the Government’s plan to implement this pledge, which recognises the reality of the continued role of oil and gas in our energy mix, while protecting jobs, maintaining our energy security, creating new opportunities for the future and keeping us at the forefront of global efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. It does this by setting out how existing fields will be managed responsibly, including by allowing limited production where it is it is linked to existing fields and infrastructure, while supporting the growth of clean energy industries and the jobs that come with them.
On Rosebank specifically, the situation remains that the Government must make an impartial decision through a formal, evidence-based process. I welcome that following court rulings against the previous administration’s decision-making on this issue, this Government responded swiftly by issuing new guidance to ensure future decisions fully take environmental impacts into account. The Government will now make a final decision after assessing the significance of those impacts and balancing relevant considerations on a case by case basis. I will continue to follow this closely.
More broadly, I agree that the real solutions to Britain’s energy challenges lie in expanding renewable energy and improving the energy efficiency of our homes. That is why I continue to support the Government’s mission to deliver clean power by 2030 and to upgrade millions of homes so that they are warmer and more energy efficient.
Thank you again for contacting me about this crucial issue. I remain committed to taking responsible action on the climate and energy security while ensuring a just and secure transition in the North Sea.
Best wishes
Jonathan
Note: For a more detailed discussion on the UK’s climate change commitments and new oil and gas developments see: There Is No Atmospheric Exemption For British Oil And Gas.