Pressure Mounts on Andy Burnham Over Rosebank Oil Field's Alleged Links to Israeli Settlements

The prime minister has been formally warned that giving the go-ahead to Britain's largest untapped oil field could place his own government's sanctions policy in jeopardy, amid concerns over the project's connections to an Israeli conglomerate named in a United Nations database of firms linked to West Bank settlements. The long-anticipated decision on Rosebank, which lies in waters off the Shetland Islands, is expected imminently and has become one of the most politically charged energy questions facing the government.

Environmental campaigners, alongside Green Party leader Zack Polanski, have independently written to Andy Burnham and the foreign secretary to flag the potential conflict. At the centre of their concern is Delek Group, an Israeli company that controls Ithaca Energy, which in turn holds a 20% stake in the Rosebank development. Last year, Delek Group appeared in a UN database listing businesses accused of providing services or utilities that support settlements in occupied Palestinian territories.

Delek Group has rejected the listing. A spokesman told the Daily Telegraph that the company no longer has any involvement in Israeli settlements and was included in the UN database in error. The firm said it intends to formally challenge the listing alongside its legal advisers and has requested the immediate removal of its name.

The campaign group Uplift, whose legal challenge against the Rosebank project in 2023 triggered the ongoing delay over a decision on exploration, helped organise a letter to Burnham and Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband. The letter, seen by BBC News, was written by campaigners from Stop Rosebank and Greenpeace, with assistance from Uplift. It asks the government to clarify whether Delek would be caught by sanctions announced last month.

In their correspondence, the campaigners pressed for an unambiguous answer. They asked Burnham to confirm "unequivocally" whether Delek would fall within the scope of the new planned measures, and if not, to explain how that could be reconciled with the government's stated intention to sanction those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements.

Polanski made a separate approach to Miliband, seeking details of what steps the government would take to ensure revenue from UK oil and gas production does not end up financing illegal settlements. He framed Rosebank as a litmus test for the credibility of Labour's proposed sanctions regime, arguing that companies blacklisted by the UN for operating in the illegal settlements should not be bankrolled by oil and gas revenues from the North Sea.

Last month, Miliband signalled a hardening of the UK's stance when he announced action against companies and individuals providing services such as infrastructure to settlement expansion. The UK measures will also ban imports of goods originating from illegal settlements, a move that prompted a furious response from Israel.

Ithaca Energy defended its position in a statement to the BBC, describing itself as a London Stock Exchange-listed company and a member of the FTSE 100 governed by the highest standards of corporate governance. It said it is one of the biggest investors in the North Sea and Scotland, a responsible employer, and a major contributor both to the UK Treasury through tax payments and to the country's energy security.

The question of whether to approve Rosebank, as well as the Jackdaw gas field east of Aberdeen, has acquired enormous political significance. Rosebank was originally approved by the previous Conservative government in 2023, but that decision was successfully challenged in the courts by campaigners including Uplift. Responsibility for the final call now rests with Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh, though the outcome will be widely read as an indicator of Burnham's broader thinking on oil and gas.

Miliband was widely believed to have been opposed to Rosebank during his time as Sir Keir Starmer's energy secretary. Burnham, by contrast, has repeatedly spoken of the need for a "flexible" approach to energy and is thought to favour drilling more where licences already exist in the North Sea. The decision could also carry implications for UK relations with the United States, given that President Trump has pressured successive British prime ministers to expand North Sea drilling.

While Downing Street is relieved that Trump has not attacked the government over its recent West Bank sanctions, his administration has made clear the US will not pursue the same course of action. Tessa Khan, executive director at Uplift, said "not one penny of North Sea oil profits" should go to a company which "itself now risks being sanctioned by the UK". The Foreign Office declined to comment when approached.

The wider context is sharply contested. Israel has built about 160 settlements housing 700,000 Jews since it occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem during the 1967 Middle East war, with an estimated 3.3 million Palestinians living alongside them. Settlements are illegal under international law, and recent months have seen a rise in violence towards Palestinians in the West Bank by settlers. Israel has criticised the UK sanctions, accusing the government of pursuing "anti-Israel policies".

With the decision on Rosebank looming, the government faces a delicate balancing act between its stated commitment to sanctioning those linked to illegal settlements, its energy security objectives, and its relationship with a key ally. How ministers resolve the apparent tension between approving the oil field and enforcing the new sanctions regime may define the credibility of Labour's approach to the West Bank for months to come.