Energy Secretary Ed Miliband (Image: GETTY)

A source told The Sunday Times: “The question mark is can they do new licences in new fields if they run the infrastructure back to existing licensed blocks.”

An insider insisted that the move would not mean “billions and billions more barrels” extracted.

It comes after Donald Trump last week urged Sir Keir Starmer to exploit the “great asset” of North Sea oil and gas.

Sir Keir said he was “absolutely determined to ensure that the price and cost of energy comes down” for households and businesses.

“And the approach I’ve taken on this is the same approach that I say to many other things: a pragmatic approach.”

A source close to Mr Miliband said: “We are working to ensure a policy outcome which delivers on the twin objectives of the manifesto — ensuring a world-leading position on no new licences to explore new fields, and to maintain existing fields for their lifetime.

“We will deliver both on climate leadership and a just transition in the North Sea.”

Ed Miliband ‘set to U-turn on Labour’s North Sea drilling ban’ amid Reform threat

Ed Miliband has come under renewed pressure over Labour’s North Sea policy amid reports that the government could soften its opposition to new drilling, with Reform UK and the Conservatives increasingly making energy security a political dividing line.

The suggestion of a U-turn would represent a significant change in tone for the Energy Secretary, who has repeatedly defended Labour’s commitment not to issue new licences to explore new oil and gas fields.

However, the distinction between a complete reversal of Labour’s policy and allowing limited additional activity around existing fields is important.

The government’s published North Sea Future Plan commits Labour to managing existing oil and gas fields for their producing lifetimes while not issuing new licences to explore new fields. It also allows activity connected to existing infrastructure under a transitional framework.

That distinction has become increasingly important as the political argument over Britain’s energy security intensifies.

Labour’s original commitment

Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised to maintain existing North Sea licences but not issue new licences for new oil and gas exploration.

Miliband subsequently put that commitment at the centre of the government’s North Sea strategy.

The government’s November 2025 North Sea Future Plan said the policy would allow existing fields to continue operating while the basin gradually moved towards offshore wind, carbon capture, hydrogen and other forms of clean energy.

The government argued that the North Sea is a mature basin whose oil and gas production has already been declining for more than two decades. It said new exploration licences would make only a marginal difference to overall production.

Miliband has therefore consistently presented the policy as a managed transition rather than an immediate end to North Sea oil and gas production.

That is an important distinction when assessing reports of a potential U-turn.

Pressure from Reform

Reform UK has nevertheless made the North Sea an increasingly prominent part of its argument over energy policy.

The party has argued that Britain should make greater use of domestic oil and gas resources and has criticised Labour’s restrictions on new development.

The Conservatives have taken a similar position, arguing that additional North Sea production could support domestic energy security and the offshore economy.

The political pressure has intensified as concerns about international energy prices and geopolitical instability have returned to the centre of the debate.

A YouGov survey found that Scots opposed the existing ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments by 45 per cent to 37 per cent. In England and Wales, opinion was more evenly divided.

The same research found that 51 per cent of Scots considered continuing North Sea extraction for as long as possible more important than achieving Scotland’s net-zero targets.

Those figures provide context for why the issue has become politically sensitive, particularly in Scotland.

Miliband rejects a wholesale reversal

Despite reports of a possible change in policy, Miliband has continued to defend Labour’s broader approach.

In Parliament in May 2026, he rejected calls for the government to approve unrestricted new North Sea drilling.

He argued that additional licences would not materially improve energy security or reduce household bills, and said Labour was instead pursuing a combination of existing oil and gas production and rapid expansion of clean energy.

Miliband also drew a distinction between what he called a “turning off the taps” position and what he described as “drilling every last drop”.

His stated position was that existing oil and gas fields should remain open for their lifetimes, while Labour should not embark on unlimited new exploration.

That makes the idea of a straightforward reversal more complicated than the headline suggests.

The role of tiebacks

One of the key areas of debate concerns so-called tiebacks.

These involve connecting new oil or gas production to existing infrastructure rather than creating an entirely new standalone development.

The government has incorporated transitional arrangements into its North Sea policy that can allow limited activity associated with existing fields and infrastructure.

Miliband told MPs that the Energy Independence Bill would introduce transitional energy certificates, describing them as a mechanism requested by industry.

The government maintains that such arrangements are compatible with its commitment not to issue new exploration licences.

Critics take a different view.

Environmental campaigners have argued that allowing additional drilling connected to existing infrastructure could undermine the practical effect of Labour’s commitment, even if the government does not formally describe the activity as a new exploration licence.

That disagreement is likely to remain central to the political debate.

Why energy security has become so important

The argument over North Sea drilling has also been shaped by the wider international energy market.

Britain imports a significant proportion of the oil and gas it consumes, while North Sea production has been declining for many years.

Supporters of additional drilling argue that increasing domestic production could reduce dependence on overseas supplies, protect offshore jobs and support the industrial base around Aberdeen and other North Sea communities.

The government disputes the extent to which new drilling would deliver those benefits.

Its published policy argues that oil and gas are traded on international markets, meaning additional British production would not automatically translate into lower household energy prices. It also says the mature nature of the basin means new exploration would have only a limited effect on overall production.

Carbon Brief has similarly argued that claims linking new North Sea drilling directly to lower household bills and significantly greater energy security are misleading or false.

The debate therefore involves both economic and environmental questions.

Labour’s political dilemma

For Labour, the issue creates a difficult balance between its climate commitments and pressure over energy security.

Miliband has made the transition to clean energy one of the government’s central priorities. Labour has invested heavily in offshore wind and other renewable technologies and wants the North Sea to become an important part of that transition.

But the political argument has changed since Labour’s manifesto was written.

Energy prices, international conflicts and concerns about industrial jobs have made the question of domestic energy production more politically prominent.

That creates space for Reform and the Conservatives to argue that Labour’s restrictions are economically risky.

At the same time, abandoning the policy entirely could create opposition from Labour MPs, environmental groups and voters who supported the party’s climate programme.

The risk of a political U-turn

A formal decision to issue new exploration licences would be politically significant because it would appear to reverse a commitment Labour made before entering government.

It could also create questions about the government’s wider net-zero strategy.

A more limited decision involving tiebacks or existing licences would be different.

Such an approach could allow ministers to argue that they were protecting North Sea jobs and energy infrastructure without abandoning the commitment not to open entirely new exploration areas.

That distinction explains why speculation about a “U-turn” needs to be treated cautiously.

The Guardian reported in July that Andy Burnham’s government was considering new North Sea drilling arrangements, including tiebacks, after becoming prime minister. The report noted that Labour’s manifesto had promised not to issue new licences, while also highlighting the possibility that new drilling connected to existing infrastructure could be structured without technically breaching that commitment.

The report concerned Burnham rather than a confirmed reversal by Miliband, underlining the importance of separating political speculation from confirmed government policy.

Reform sees an opportunity

For Reform UK, the North Sea debate offers an opportunity to attack Labour from a different direction.

The party can argue that the government is prioritising climate policy over domestic energy production and that Britain should make greater use of its own natural resources.

That argument also connects with Reform’s broader criticism of net-zero policies.

The Conservatives have similarly attempted to position themselves as more supportive of North Sea development, although the precise differences between the parties would become important if an election campaign focused heavily on energy.

For Labour, the challenge is to explain why its energy strategy can protect consumers and energy security while continuing the transition away from fossil fuels.

What would a real U-turn look like?

A genuine reversal would involve the government abandoning its commitment not to issue new licences for unexplored oil and gas fields.

That would be clearly different from allowing existing licences to operate for their full producing lives or permitting limited tieback developments associated with existing infrastructure.

The government’s current published position remains that it will not issue new exploration licences.

Consequently, reports of an imminent U-turn should not be treated as confirmation that Labour has already abandoned its policy.

What is clear is that the political pressure surrounding the North Sea has increased.

Reform and the Conservatives are challenging Labour over energy security, while parts of Labour’s own political coalition remain concerned about climate change and the government’s net-zero commitments.

A growing political fault line

The North Sea debate is therefore becoming about more than oil and gas.

It is increasingly a question about Britain’s economic model, energy independence, industrial jobs and the pace of the transition to renewable energy.

Miliband has so far maintained that Labour can support existing North Sea production while moving decisively towards clean energy.

Critics argue that this approach could leave Britain too dependent on imported fossil fuels, while environmental campaigners warn that further drilling risks undermining climate objectives.

The evidence does not yet establish that Miliband has formally abandoned Labour’s ban on new exploration licences.

What it does show is that the political environment around the policy has changed significantly. Public opinion is divided, Reform and the Conservatives are applying pressure, and questions about energy security have become more prominent.

Any decision to permit additional North Sea activity will therefore carry consequences beyond the individual drilling projects involved.

For Miliband and Labour, the challenge is to demonstrate how their North Sea strategy can reconcile energy security, industrial employment and climate commitments.

Whether the government ultimately changes the rules, expands the use of existing infrastructure or maintains its current position, the North Sea is likely to remain one of the clearest political dividing lines over Britain’s energy future.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.