In a move that critics warn will make Britain more dependent on foreign energy, Andy Burnham’s Labour Government is seeking to turn its ban on new North Sea oil and gas exploration licences into law, raising serious questions about the Prime Minister’s understanding of energy security.
PRIME Minister Andy Burnham is backing legislation that would prevent new oil and gas exploration licences being issued in the North Sea, despite Britain continuing to rely heavily on fossil fuels to heat homes, power businesses and support industry.
The Government’s Energy Independence Bill, introduced to Parliament on Wednesday, November 4, would place Labour’s existing restrictions on new exploration licences into legislation, making them harder for a future government to reverse.
The controversial move has provoked criticism from opposition politicians and energy industry representatives, who warn that restricting domestic production opportunities risks increasing Britain’s dependence on imported energy.
At the centre of the row is an extraordinary contradiction in Labour’s approach to energy security: the Government acknowledges that Britain will continue to need oil and gas for decades, yet wants to prevent companies from obtaining new licences to explore for additional resources beneath British waters.
Rather than encouraging domestic energy production alongside the development of renewable technologies and nuclear power, Labour is choosing to restrict the future development of one of Britain’s most important natural resources.
And it is doing so under legislation carrying the seemingly contradictory title of the Energy Independence Bill.
The proposed law, sponsored by Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh, would fulfil Labour’s 2024 manifesto commitment to stop issuing new licences for exploration in the North Sea.
Existing licensed developments would be permitted to continue, while new Transitional Energy Certificates would allow some additional production in areas close to established infrastructure.
The Government estimates that these arrangements could unlock approximately 60 million barrels of oil and support hundreds of jobs.
However, they would not allow companies to resume unrestricted exploration of new fields.
Crucially, enshrining the restrictions in legislation would mean that a future administration seeking to restore new exploration licensing would need Parliament to change the law, rather than simply reversing ministerial policy.
For a Prime Minister who repeatedly speaks about putting Britain back in control of its future, Burnham’s determination to restrict the country’s own energy resources is attracting considerable criticism.
Britain still needs oil and gas, whether Labour likes it or not
The uncomfortable reality for Labour is that Britain cannot simply abandon fossil fuels overnight.
According to a September 2026 House of Commons Library briefing, the UK has been a net importer of gas since 2004 and a net importer of oil since 2005, with the exception of 2020.
Oil and gas are also expected to remain part of Britain’s energy supply and industrial requirements through to 2050.
That raises an obvious question: if Britain will continue consuming oil and gas, why should the Government deliberately restrict opportunities to produce more of those resources domestically?
Producing energy at home supports British employment, industrial activity and supply chains. Greater domestic output can also reduce the volume of imports required, even though oil and gas prices remain influenced by international markets.
Yet Labour’s policy risks leaving more of Britain’s future energy requirements to be met by overseas suppliers as existing North Sea fields decline.
The Government argues that North Sea production has fallen by more than 70 per cent since its peak and that additional exploration would not reverse the long-term decline or eliminate Britain’s reliance on imports.
But critics argue that being unable to meet all domestic demand is hardly a convincing justification for making it more difficult to meet some of it.
Energy independence does not have to mean producing every barrel of oil or cubic metre of gas Britain consumes. It can also mean reducing avoidable exposure to overseas supplies wherever economically viable.
The question Labour has yet to resolve to its critics’ satisfaction is why domestic production should be constrained while Britain continues purchasing the same commodities on global markets.
Industry warns Labour is putting Britain’s energy security at risk
The proposals have drawn a fierce response from the oil and gas industry, with companies warning that the Government is undermining investment in British resources at a time of continuing international uncertainty.
David Bucknall, chief executive of Ineos Energy, has warned that restricting future exploration would weaken Britain’s ability to meet its own energy needs.
He pointed to Norway, which continues developing its offshore resources, and highlighted the pipelines, production platforms, ports and skilled workforce already supporting Britain’s North Sea industry.
The comparison raises an awkward question for Burnham’s Government: why should Britain make exploiting its own offshore resources more difficult while neighbouring countries continue benefiting from theirs?
David Whitehouse, chief executive of Offshore Energies UK, has also challenged the Government’s approach.
He warned that Britain already imports more than 40 per cent of the energy it needs, leaving households and businesses vulnerable to international instability.
His argument is straightforward. Britain should be maximising the energy it can responsibly produce domestically rather than increasing its reliance on imports.
Shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie has been equally scathing, describing Labour ministers as out of touch with the economic and energy challenges facing the country.
Both the Conservatives and Reform UK have pledged to restart North Sea exploration licensing if they enter government.
The dispute is not simply about environmental targets. It concerns investment, industrial competitiveness, skilled employment, tax revenues and the future of communities whose livelihoods have long depended on the offshore energy industry.
Labour’s own Jackdaw decision exposes the contradiction
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Labour’s position is its recent approval of production at the Jackdaw gas field.
On October 21, the Government announced that the already licensed development had received consent to begin production.
According to the Government’s own assessment, Jackdaw could increase Britain’s domestic gas production by approximately six per cent at its peak, support hundreds of jobs and contribute billions of pounds to the economy over its lifetime.
Ministers also acknowledged that the project would strengthen domestic gas supplies.
Yet just two weeks later, Burnham’s Government introduced legislation intended to prevent new exploration licences being issued.
If domestically produced gas can strengthen energy security, protect employment and contribute to economic growth, critics are entitled to ask why Labour wants to restrict opportunities to discover and develop further supplies.
The Government maintains that Jackdaw is consistent with its policy because the field already holds a licence.
But that legal distinction does little to answer the wider economic question of why future discoveries should be treated differently from existing licensed resources.
A decision is also still awaited on the Rosebank oil field west of Shetland, which has an existing licence.
The Government insists its proposals will support an orderly transition away from fossil fuels. Industry representatives fear they could instead accelerate the decline of domestic production and discourage future investment.
Burnham promises energy independence while restricting British energy
Labour insists the wider legislation will make energy more affordable, strengthen consumer protections and accelerate investment in renewable power.
The Government has announced plans to remove standing charges from household gas bills, increase regulation of energy suppliers and improve electricity grid infrastructure.
Burnham has also highlighted the Government’s proposed £100 winter energy payment for eligible households and measures intended to reduce annual energy costs.
These policies may provide financial relief, but they do not resolve the fundamental disagreement over Britain’s long-term energy supply.
The Prime Minister argues that renewable power will eventually reduce the country’s exposure to international gas markets.
That is a legitimate objective. However, it does not follow that restricting domestic oil and gas exploration while Britain continues consuming those fuels is necessarily the most effective route to achieving it.
New North Sea projects can take years to develop, and additional British production would not automatically translate into cheaper household bills because prices are influenced by international markets.
Nevertheless, domestic production can support employment, investment, tax receipts and physical security of supply.
Those economic benefits cannot simply be dismissed because they do not fit comfortably with Labour’s environmental ambitions.
Nor should the development of renewable energy and the responsible extraction of domestic oil and gas automatically be treated as mutually exclusive.
Britain could pursue nuclear power, offshore wind, solar generation and other technologies while continuing to develop economically viable oil and gas resources during the transition.
Instead, Labour is attempting to place a legal restriction on future exploration, potentially limiting the choices available to future governments.
For a Prime Minister who talks so frequently about economic growth, industrial renewal and national security, Burnham’s willingness to constrain a major domestic industry is difficult to reconcile with those ambitions.
A question of priorities
The Government says its policy is necessary to meet Britain’s climate commitments, including efforts to limit global temperature rises.
However, the legislation comes with genuine economic and strategic questions that deserve more than political slogans.
How much additional oil and gas might remain undeveloped because new exploration licences cannot be issued?
What would the loss of potential future production mean for skilled British jobs, investment and tax revenues?
And if the country continues importing substantial quantities of oil and gas, what are the wider consequences of choosing overseas supplies over resources that might otherwise be developed domestically?
Labour argues that new exploration would make only a marginal difference to Britain’s overall production and would not make the country self-sufficient.
But that argument overlooks a fundamental point: reducing dependence on imports is not the same as eliminating imports altogether.
Every economically viable domestic development has the potential to contribute to Britain’s energy supply, even if it cannot transform the country’s entire energy market.
The choice facing the country is therefore not simply between fossil fuels and clean energy. It is also about whether Britain should retain the option to exploit its own resources while developing the technologies that will eventually replace them.
Burnham’s Government has decided that future North Sea exploration should be restricted by law.
Its critics believe that decision prioritises Labour’s climate commitments over economic opportunity and practical energy security.
And with Britain still dependent on imported oil and gas, the Prime Minister now faces an increasingly uncomfortable question.
How can a Government claim to be delivering energy independence while legislating to prevent Britain from exploring for more of its own energy?
That is the contradiction at the heart of Burnham’s Energy Independence Bill, and one Labour has yet to convincingly answer.
