South Korean Hot-rolled Steel Plate: TRA Recommendation
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 days, 11 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
On 6 June 2025, the UK’s Trade Remedies Authority initiated a dumping investigation on hot-rolled steel plate of South Korean origin. During the investigation, the TRA recommended to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade that a provisional anti-dumping measure be applied for up to six months at duties of between 11.63% and 29.12%, dependent upon the South Korean exporter. This recommendation was made on the basis that the TRA provisionally determined that two domestic producers, Spartan Steel and Tata Steel UK, have been injured by dumping of hot-rolled steel plate of South Korean origin.
While the Secretary of State recognises the TRA’s provisional findings, he has also considered wider matters in the public interest. From 1 July 2026, the Government will implement a new steel trade measure by preserving vital steel production for critical national infrastructure and defence. The application of this measure may impact the need for a provisional anti-dumping measure, and this is a point that the TRA did not consider in its recommendation, which preceded the announcement of the new steel measure.
In this context, and mindful of the impact on the wider UK-South Korea trade relationship, the Secretary of State is satisfied that, in this unique situation, it is not in the public interest to apply the provisional measure.
The Secretary of State’s decision here does not affect any future decision he may take upon receipt of the TRA’s final recommendation regarding this investigation.
The Government will publish a public notice on 9 June 2026 to give effect to this decision
[HCWS102]
Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
Chris Bryant Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I have today laid before the House documents the Government have identified that the House required in the 24 February 2026 Humble Address seeking all papers relating to the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment in 2001, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the advice of officials and Ministers on his suitability and due diligence and vetting conducted.
This statement explains the Government’s approach to finding these historic documents, provides an overview of what has been found, explains the approach taken in releasing information and answers the House’s specific questions on due diligence and national security vetting.
It has not been a straightforward task to identify the historic documents requested by the House. Twenty-five years ago, Government Departments were largely operating paper-based record keeping systems. We have had to track down files that might potentially contain relevant information, recall these from storage and search files manually.
An added complication lies in changes to the machinery of Government. In the period under consideration, the Government’s work to support trade and investment was led by British Trade International, headed by chief executive Sir David Wright. BTI reported to a board chaired by the Minister of State for International Trade and Investment, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, and was accountable both to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
A committee of senior officials, the Royal Visits Committee, provided advice to Ministers and the sovereign on inward and outward official overseas visits by members of the royal family. At the time this was chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.
The search focused on files from 1999 to 2001 held by the most relevant Departments—the Department for Business and Trade, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Defence, and Cabinet Office.
Today, The Government have published 11 documents that show how the role was created and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed. These include:
the formal appointment proposal to Ministers;
evidence that Ministers were content with the proposal;
internal communications to all trade staff about the role;
media and press briefing and question and answer materials.
From 1976 to 2001, the Duke of Kent served as vice-chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board and then British Trade International, undertaking more than 60 overseas visits in support of British exports. As he approached retirement from that role in 2001, consideration was given to how best to continue the engagement of the royal family in trade and investment promotion work.
In February 2000, Sir David Wright put a formal appointment proposal to Ministers, explaining that the Duke of Kent intended to withdraw from his role supporting trade promotion overseas and it was Her late Majesty’s wish that the Duke of York should succeed him. He set out a proposed role encompassing two or three trade promotion visits overseas per year, visits to UK regions and receiving prominent overseas trade visitors in the UK.
The documents show that officials and Ministers had been considering expanding the role of the Duke of York for some time prior to the formal proposal. In January 2000, the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, agreed that greater use should be made of the then Duke of York.
Media reporting indicates that the Palace announced in December 2000 that the Duke of Kent was stepping down and that the Duke of York would assume his role.
Internal BTI papers illustrate how the proposed role was developed and communicated to staff and to the media, and record that an initial familiarisation programme ran from April 2001, with the role formally announced in October 2001. Documents confirm the role was unpaid, with costs associated with official duties met through standard departmental arrangements and that systems were put in place to oversee the role. Officials established formal processes to assess and approve engagements, taking account of strategic trade and investment priorities, cost, and other Government priorities.
It is a long-standing practice across successive Administrations that when the Government respond to a Humble Address motion they have a responsibility to consider whether it is in the public interest to place information into the public domain. This is done using the principles of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and in line with the ministerial code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability, passed by both Houses in 1997.
In line with this, we have redacted documents to remove the bare minimum of personal information and information whose release would prejudice international relations. We have consulted the police to ensure that the release of information does not prejudice their investigation. We have also considered carefully the redaction of information relating to royal communications, mindful of the long-standing convention of confidentiality, which is codified under the Freedom of Information Act, in relation to communications with and on behalf of the sovereign. In this exceptional circumstance, the Government are releasing royal communications about the former Duke of York’s appointment as special representative. Communications with the royal household on unrelated topics have been redacted.
I can assure the House that we have proceeded on the basis of the maximum transparency, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Humble Address.
We have found no evidence that a formal due diligence or vetting process was undertaken. There is also no evidence that this was considered. This is understandable since this new appointment was a continuation of the royal family’s involvement in trade and investment promotion work following the Duke of Kent’s decision to relinquish his duties as vice-chairman of the Overseas Trade Board.
The Government are co-operating fully with Thames Valley Police on their investigation into Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor and possible misconduct in public office.
[HCWS57]
Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
Chris Bryant Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government’s return to the Humble Address on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I will speak briefly, because I am conscious of the time.
I have today laid before the House documents that the Government have identified that the House requested in its 24 February 2026 Humble Address, covering the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment in 2001, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the advice of officials and Ministers.s This has not been straightforward. Departments have changed in the intervening years and most documentation was then paper-based. In addition, we have had to be careful about not compromising the police investigation. I am glad to say that we have published 11 documents today, including: the formal appointment proposal, evidence that Ministers were content with the proposal, internal communications, and media and press briefings. The documents speak for themselves, and all hon. Members can read them as they are available in the Vote Office.
I want to assure the House that we have proceeded on the basis of maximum transparency and have only redacted material that bears no relevance to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, such as travel proposals for other members of the royal family or content that would otherwise prejudice international relations. I reiterate that the Government are fully co-operating with Thames Valley police in their investigation into potential misconduct in public office. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Bryant
Yes, there was a long version but, to be honest, I would basically have been reading out the written ministerial statement that we laid at 10.30 am. Much as I love the sound of my own voice, I am not sure that the House does—I think I have united the House on that—so I thought I would go for the shorter version. The papers speak for themselves.
The hon. Lady asked whether there will be more. I suspect that there will not. I think that this is nearly everything—certainly, this is everything that we have come across so far. Of course, we will keep on looking, notwithstanding the complexity around searching in paper-based systems in multiple Departments. I give the House a guarantee that if there is more to publish, I will come back with more, but I suspect that this may be our last tranche.
The hon. Lady asked whether Ministers raised questions at the time. I have published everything that relates to that period. There is nothing else, I think, to be found. The statements that say Ministers were content is the sum total of the response. I suppose, to some degree, that is understandable, bearing in mind that the palace had made it very clear that Her late Majesty was very keen that Andrew be given a job, that Andrew was keen to take on the job, and that the job had previously been done by another member of the royal family in broadly the same terms.
I am afraid that I cannot answer the question about the Lord Mandelson papers for the simple reason that I have been trying very much to keep this Humble Address separate from the other one. We had a different set of procedures to go through. I briefed Members on the Conservative Front Bench, as I did Members on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, earlier this week, when they indicated that they would be perfectly happy if we did not make a statement or respond to an urgent question of any kind, because the papers speak for themselves.
On trade envoys, the hon. Lady makes a perfectly legitimate point. I made the point the last time around that although I understand the connection people make between the role that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor played and that of modern trade envoys, they are actually very different, partly because of the royal nature of Andrew’s role in the past, but also because all trade envoys whom we appoint at the moment are Members of either this House or the House of Lords. They are not only bound by the code of conduct of this House or the other, but bound in exactly the same way as any Minister would be in terms of the code that is expected of them. We make all that extremely clear to trade envoys. Since I have been appointed, I have gathered the trade envoys together on two or three occasions, and whenever a new one is appointed, I sit with them and go through the details.
Chris Bryant
I hear the right hon. Member’s chuntering, in his regular application process to be made a trade envoy. I am still considering his proposal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Minister has so far given us two reasons why the statement he has just given at the Dispatch Box is different from the one that was sent, embargoed, an hour ago. If it is the same as the written statement, why was it sent out as embargoed? I should also say, dare I say it, that transparency should not be trumped by time limits in relation to the business of this House.
It has been three months since the House passed the Liberal Democrat Humble Address to release the files showing how and why Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as a UK special representative for trade and investment, and until today the Government have published only one written statement, which told us very little. The Minister has not previously come to the Dispatch Box at all; I note the difference from the response to the Humble Address, in the name of the official Opposition, relating to Peter Mandelson.
The files that we have seen show that there was no vetting by the Government and that, even then, no questions appear to have been asked. The lack of documentation provided is itself concerning, as is the time taken to get this far. The Minister has said that he is not sure whether there are more documents. When will he be sure, and when will he release any remaining documents? The documents we do have clearly show concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. It started with golf, but we all know what came next. Why did that not lead to any scrutiny or vetting, not just at the start but at any stage during Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s tenure as an envoy? The guardrails were not in place. The appointment came into effect more than a year after Ministers said that they were happy for it to happen, and the files also show that the then Prime Minister had been aware from the start and did nothing. There was time for the warning signs to be taken seriously. Why were no questions asked at all in that period?
In his written statement to the House today, the Minister excused the lack of vetting and oversight because Andrew was a royal replacing a royal. Does he agree that safeguards must be put in place for any future such appointments? Can he tell the House whether officials or Ministers were aware at the time of Andrew’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein, which had already been established when the appointment was made? Was this connection monitored? Finally, can the Minister confirm, given their absence from this release, that there are no documents pertaining to communications with Peter Mandelson about the appointment?
Chris Bryant
If I am honest, I am bit miffed by the attitude of Liberal Democrat Front Benchers, because I have regularly updated them ever since the Humble Address was passed. I have been as open as possible with them, and they have privately indicated to me, regularly, that they were perfectly happy with the progress we were making.
I thought there would be some difficulties for us to overcome, in particular the connection between the Humble Address and the police investigation—obviously, we do not want to do anything that might imperil the investigation. I think all hon. Members would agree that, if the police were to find evidence and felt that the Crown Prosecution Service should take forward charges of misconduct in public office, we would all support the prosecuting authorities in doing their duty. I explained all that to the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends, who indicated that they were perfectly happy with that process. I had thought that the police might ask us not to publish some of the material; in fact, they have been very co-operative and have allowed us to publish everything.
We have made some minor redactions, as I have said. Some of those relate to material that has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. For instance, where there is talk about the Royal Visits Committee or visits by other members of the royal family, we have redacted that material, as we have material where there are possibilities that we might upset our international allies.
The hon. Lady asked whether any more papers will be coming along. At this point, I am not aware of any. As I said earlier, I suspect that this is the sum total of what we have. She quite rightly makes the point— I think a lot of people are surprised—that, as I think we have known for some time, no vetting was done. It has been standard not to vet members of the royal family. She asked me whether we would vet anybody else who was appointed to such a role. We have no intention of appointing anybody to such a role in the future, but of course we are grateful for the support that the royal family regularly provides with international visits around the world. I think everybody, including those who disagreed with it, has accepted that His Majesty’s visit to the United States of America was a great success. I do not think we should be vetting His Majesty the King, and I do not think the hon. Lady is suggesting that either; I think she was just trying to get grumpy with me.
I have tried to answer all the hon. Lady’s questions. I reassure her that, honestly, we have moved at pace, as fast as we can. It is difficult to find some of the paperwork because it is literally paperwork, and the Government Departments have changed multiple times in the intervening years, but we have moved as fast as we can.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I just say for the record that I have not made any formal application to be a trade and investment envoy? I previously was a trade and investment envoy under Prime Minister Theresa May, who is now in another place. What I am concerned about is the fact that this particular programme is not cross-party. It was set up by David Cameron, now Lord Cameron, and its strength, I felt, was in the fact that it was cross-party rather than full of mostly Labour Members and Labour peers. I just wanted to put that on the record.
The Minister references the amount of paper-based documentation, but of course, we have not all gone to the cloud overnight. If he goes down to the National Archives at Kew, he will find a lot of paper records going back quite a long time, not just from the last 20 or so years.
On a more substantive point, I want to ask the Minister about the role of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He will know, as a former Foreign Office Minister, that diplomatic telegrams are sent by embassies—often by ambassadors—back to London, and possibly even to the royal household. I wonder whether any of those have been disclosed in the papers, which I have not had time to read today because they have only just been laid.
Finally, have any of those diptels, or responses to them, made their way to the office of senior officials in the royal household? Did they know anything about the activities of the former Prince Andrew? Who did they speak to about it, and what action, if any, was taken?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman says he has not applied for a post as a trade envoy. I do not want to show the House the text messages he sent me, but anyway, he makes a fair point. I want to make sure that the trade envoy programme is really effective and delivers around the world. I was with Lord Alderdice the other day, who is not a member of the Labour party, at the London stock exchange when the Uzbek national investment fund was being listed in the UK. His intervention in Uzbekistan has been enormously important in taking forward some of these investments into the UK and listings at the LSE. Indeed, we could see a further investment at the LSE, which would be the biggest ever listing here. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is a Conservative Member, is also a trade envoy and does a good job.
I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question about diptels. As I said earlier, we are trawling through everything we can to see whether there is anything else that is of relevance under the Humble Address terms. So far, we have published everything we have that is relevant. I can guarantee the House that if there is anything more, we will of course come forward.
I was also asked by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) whether there was any monitoring of the relationship between Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. I did not answer that question; I apologise. I have seen absolutely nothing to that effect. If I had, I would have published it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
May I first make it clear that I have no desire to be a trade envoy? Aberdeen is the best place on earth and I do not want to be anywhere else if I can help it.
The Minister of State said in his statement that people are still looking. Will he advise us if they stop looking? I appreciate that they might currently be actively looking because there may be boxes that they have not gone through, but will he advise us when there is definitely an end to this, unless somebody accidentally comes across something?
My second question relates to future trade envoys. I am not sure how much the process for appointing them has changed, but can he give us a reassurance that the process is much better than it used to be? If it is not, can he give us a reassurance that he will look at that, so that we can all feel comfortable that our trade envoys are the right people, or certainly not the wrong people, to be doing that job?
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Lady that she does not want to be a trade envoy. I often feel as if I am a trade envoy for Scotland, because we are often securing good deals, as we just have with the Gulf Co-operation Council, and in India. We have just done remarkably well—
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
indicated dissent.
Chris Bryant
I see the right hon. Lady representing Plaid Cymru shaking her head; we have just done really well for Welsh lamb farmers in the GCC deal in the Gulf.
Will I come back to the House when we stop looking? I do not think there will be any more material. Obviously, I will come back if there is more material. I will probably make a written ministerial statement rather than an oral statement just to say that we have ceased the process.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked about due diligence. It is a significant point; of course we do due diligence before anybody is appointed as a trade envoy under the present scheme, which, as I say, is very different from what happened in relation to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I should also say that the Business and Trade Committee is currently doing an inquiry into some of these issues. I am very happy to talk about the present trade envoy programme with the Committee, but there are delicacies about what we can say about the past in case the police investigation could be compromised. I am very keen not to do that, and I am glad that the police have been so helpful in enabling us to publish everything that we can today.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
A Downing Street spokesperson is currently saying that a further tranche of files relating to the appointment are to be published at a future date, which is different from what the Minister is saying at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps he could clarify.
Chris Bryant
To be absolutely clear, I think this is probably the last tranche of material that we have. If I had more to publish, I would have published it today; I have not got anything more to publish. I reserve the right to publish more if there is more stuff, but to some degree we are entering into speculation. As I say, if there is more, we will publish it. All along I have instructed officials to work as fast and to be as transparent as we can. That is precisely what we will do, but as I say, at the moment, there is no more to publish. By the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, we got a great GCC deal with the Gulf yesterday.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Bryant Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
We are helping SMEs do more trade with European countries by taking down tariff and other trade barriers in our EU-UK summit, reducing red tape in individual countries, enabling easier business travel and allowing the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, both across the EU and bilaterally. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman welcoming that.
Ben Maguire
I always welcome the cutting of red tape and I await the details excitedly. My North Cornwall constituent, Hannah Willow, runs two art businesses. Prior to Brexit, around 30% of her sales were to customers in Europe, but this has now fallen to 10%. As a result of recent tariffs on trade, her exports to the US have also declined by 20%. Now, adding insult to injury, the de minimis threshold will be removed from 1 July this year. That means that items valued at under €150 entering the EU will no longer be exempt from customs duty and will incur a flat €3 fee per item. Will the Government take up the Liberal Democrats’ call to negotiate a bespoke customs union and finally put our small businesses back at the heart of economy, where they belong?
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I am not going to take any ideas from the Lib Dems on this matter—I think I can pretty much unite the House on that. One of the things I am very keen on is that we maintain our position as the second-largest art market in the world. That means that we have to negotiate better agreements, including with the European Union. That is one of the things we are doing at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the de minimis rule, but I notice that other businesses in his constituency are doing well. Tarquin’s Cornish Gin is doing well; it has been winning awards in the United States of America and elsewhere—I understand that it is the best gin in the world.
Of course, the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is doing on critical minerals is bound to benefit Cornish lithium. We are very keen to ensure that we have that capacity in the UK, rather than the lithium just being processed in other parts of the world.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Jerome Mayhew
Our economy needs access to oil. Last October, the Government announced that they were going to sanction Russian oil and jet fuel. Yesterday, they decided not to do so, on the same day that they banned new drilling in the North sea. Why do the Government support Putin’s Russian oil, but not our UK oil?
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The thing about a Labrador is that when it has got hold of the wrong end of the stick, it is very difficult to get that stick back. A lot of hon. Members have got the wrong end of the stick about what we are doing. We are increasing the sanctions on Russian oil. Up until now, it has been perfectly possible to bring Russian oil products into the UK if they are processed elsewhere, without any impediment whatsoever. It is absolutely right that we are bringing that to an end.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Chris Bryant
I am very happy to meet the company, and the right hon. Gentleman if he want to come and see me, to talk through all those issues. It is really important, if we are to have a steel production sector in this country, to ensure that it has an opportunity to compete with unfair competition around the rest of the world. That is why we are taking the action that we are. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), made the point earlier that if we do not take this action on quotas and tariffs, we will be dumped on, because every other equivalent major economy to ours is taking that action, but I am very happy to look at the precise details with the company, and with him.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Chris Bryant
Of course I am happy to meet. Maybe we should organise a meeting for several companies and several hon. Members. I am very happy to do that as soon as possible. I do not want to extend the transition period, for the simple reason that the EU, the United States and other countries are introducing very similar measures, and the danger is that we would just be dumped on. There will be a review mechanism after a year. I am very keen to meet colleagues to explain the trade-offs we are having to make.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Back to the 1 July tariffs: the quotas are too small and the commodity codes are too broad. The steel required for aerospace can come only from, I think, SSUK, which is currently in liquidation. That grade of steel cannot be produced elsewhere—that is for commercial steel. Businesses will be bankrupted within six months—12 months is far too long. Will those on the Front Bench please listen to industry on this?
Chris Bryant
We are listening to both sides of industry, because there are the downstream users and there is the production. The truth of the matter is that UK steel production under the previous Government fell from— I think this is correct—27 million tonnes a year to 4 million tonnes a year. If we are to meet our armaments needs in future years, we need a sovereign steel capacity in this country. We have to be able to produce British steel. We have been very careful to ensure that the quotas are cutting areas only where the UK can produce that steel.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that expanding the use of home-grown timber in construction and manufacturing would not only support UK forestry and small businesses, but strengthen supply chain resilience and reduce our reliance on imports, which currently make up 80% of the timber we use? What specific measures will the Government introduce to support this sector as a strategic national asset?
Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions
Chris Bryant Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to make a statement regarding the Government’s decision to issue general trade licences for sanctioned processed oil products prohibited under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Putin must never be allowed victory in Ukraine and we will do everything we can as a Government and a country to debilitate and degrade the Russian war machine. That is precisely what our sanctions regime is designed to do. We have sanctioned more than 3,300 individuals and organisations and hundreds of shadow fleet tankers. It is as tough a sanctions regime as any in the world, and we are proud of it.
I want to make it absolutely clear that our sanctions regime today is tougher than it was yesterday or last week. In fact, thanks to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 statutory instrument, we will from today for the first time—for the first time—ban the import not only of uranium but of Russian oil products processed in a third country. We are not lifting any existing sanctions at all. We are, like other countries, phasing in these sanctions, which is why, in the light of the situation in the middle east, we have issued a targeted temporary licence to allow the continued import of diesel and jet fuel. These licences are temporary and targeted. We will review them regularly and repeatedly, and will suspend them as soon as we possibly can.
As a result of all the measures that we have taken, there will be less Russian oil on the market, not more, Russia will be poorer, not richer, and Putin will be weaker, not stronger.
Andrew Bowie
In their 18th packet of sanctions in January this year, His Majesty’s Government prohibited the import of Russian petroleum products produced in third countries from Russian oil, obliging importers to provide proof of the origin of oil used in petroleum product production. Yet yesterday evening at 7 pm, while we in this very Chamber were debating the future of our own North sea oil and gas industry and Labour MPs were being whipped to vote against new oil and gas licences in the North sea, the Government slipped out an announcement that the general trade licence for sanctioned processed oil products now permits certain activities prohibited under the Russian sanctions regulations 2019, such as the import of diesel and jet fuel to the UK. At the exact same time that this Government have rolled back on their commitments to Ukraine and given the green light to purchase Russian oil from third countries, they were whipping their MPs to vote to shut down our own oil and gas production. It is an absolute disgrace. They should all be utterly ashamed of themselves.
What message does this send to the international community, to the people of Ukraine, and to workers in our North sea oil and gas industry, which is being crushed by the misguided eco-zealotry of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero? We are not only rewarding the thuggish and criminal behaviour of the Russian state, but punishing ourselves and the skilled workforce in the United Kingdom.
Who loses out while we signal to Russia that we are willing once again to buy its oil? It is the British people. We are seeing 1,000 job losses in oil and gas in the UK every single month, and losing out on £25 billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years, which we could be investing in our public services. Just yesterday I pointed out that Moscow would be celebrating the useful idiots opposite and today the Government have proved my point.
According to the Government website, where the announcement was made yesterday, the Secretary of State has
“the power to vary, revoke or suspend this licence at any time”,
so will he reconsider the decision? Why does the Minister believe that increased reliance on foreign imports improves British energy security? What alternatives did the Government consider? And who on earth is in charge of our energy security? Is it the Energy Secretary, the Prime Minister, or Vladimir Putin?
Chris Bryant
First, I think the hon. Member must have missed the fact that a statutory instrument that, for the first time, implements a ban on refined Russian crude oil products processed in a third country is coming into force today. It did not come into force earlier in the year. Incidentally, it did not come into force when he was in government, because when the Conservatives were in government, they allowed such oil products to come into the UK, and he personally did absolutely nothing about it.
The truth is that both sides of the House agree and, in fact, I think all parties in the House agree—well, we have not heard from Reform yet—that we need to make sure that Putin does not prosper. One of the key ways of doing that is making sure that we tackle the shadow fleet, which we have been doing very successfully. More than 500 tankers have been disrupted, and $1.6 billion less oil will be transported this year than last year because of those sanctions.
To be precise on the hon. Member’s question of whether we will review the licences, I have already said we will review the licences. They are there for a very simple reason, which is that, just as the previous Government nearly always introduced sanctions in a phased way when he was a Minister, that is precisely what we are doing with these sanctions on oil products processed in a third country. We are doing the right thing, and I would have thought that he would want to praise us. Unfortunately, I think he has tried to find a political headline rather than look into the facts.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
This package of sanctions has come to us very quickly, and I am slightly concerned about how it has been communicated today, so a bit of clarity would be really welcome. How long will the regulations made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 stand prior to completing the phasing in of the new package of sanctions? Will there be a gap, or will we immediately turn to the new sanctions and implementation of the sanctions regime?
Chris Bryant
There are two things here. A set of sanctions comes into force today, including on oil and oil products processed in a third country. It is the first time that the UK has gone down that route. As I say, the previous Government chose not to go down that route, even though people were arguing for it. I think this will be an important new measure in ratcheting up the pressure on the Russian regime.
At the same time, partly in recognition of the instability there may be in the energy markets as a result of the events in the middle east and the war in Iran—obviously, we have chosen not to take part in it—we have decided to implement these sanctions in a phased way, as many other countries have done, including Australia and Canada. That is why we have introduced these licences for diesel and jet fuel. As I have said, I want these licences to last as short a time as is possible and necessary to manage that market instability, and that is why we will review them as much as possible.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as our trade envoy to Ukraine. We stand 100% beside our friends in Ukraine. Indeed, the package of sanctions we have introduced this time around is the toughest of any, and I know our Ukrainian friends have supported them.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Inconsistencies and U-turns have become characteristic of this Government, but this is more than just a redirection of policy; this is a betrayal of Ukraine. This Government are abandoning our European ally in its moment of need by putting more money into the pockets of President Putin to fund his war machine.
Last month, the Liberal Democrats urged the Government to implement a bold plan to keep Britain moving, which included a 10p cut to fuel duty, but also featured proposals to boost public transport by slashing bus fares to £1 and cutting rail fares by 10%. This would have taken pressure off our forecourts, but the Government sat on their hands. Instead, the Government believe that our best course of action is to abandon all morality and to indirectly fund Putin’s illegal war. I would like to ask the Minister how much money will be spent on Russian oil products as a result of this decision, and will he admit that lifting these sanctions will indirectly fund Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but I do just need to explain to the hon. Lady that we are not lifting any sanctions. We are implementing new sanctions, which only come into force today. Up until now, it has been perfectly legal to import Russian oil products processed in a third country into the UK—up until now. It is only now, because of this Government, with the new sanctions that come into force today, that that will not be possible. I really do hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her comments.
The whole of this House stands 100% beside Ukraine. I myself am probably the longest standing critic of Putin in this House. Back in 2014, when others were in government and not doing anything about the invasion of Crimea, I was saying that we should be tackling Russian aggression, because otherwise, if Putin was allowed to take Crimea with impunity, he would come for the rest. I do recognise that Liberal Democrat Members have been calling in the Business and Trade Committee and elsewhere for us to tackle precisely this issue of Russian crude oil processed in other countries that ends up coming into the UK. Up until now, that has been a source of income for Putin, but we are the Government who are stopping this, not enabling it.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am grateful for the clarity my hon. Friend provides for us on this issue, because it has been of extreme concern for a number of colleagues. Does he think that wider global insecurity around energy requires global co-operation and collaboration, and that the UK Government could lead on that? We are hosting the G20 next year. In the process of building up to that, could we consider ensuring that global energy security is the priority for the G20 summit?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes an immensely important point on energy security, which is one reason why we are passionately committed to trying to make sure we are not reliant on oil or oil products from anywhere else in the world, and that we are able to not only meet our net zero targets, but be energy resilient for ourselves. She is also right that we need to work alongside our allies, not only—I would argue—on energy security but in relation to imposing sanctions. We must co-operate with other countries. As I say, our set of processes is remarkably similar to those of Australia, Canada—I think—and several other countries. We need to move forward together if we are to defeat Putin and to ensure we have energy security for our own households and our own businesses.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Minister, who has been tough on Russia for many, many years. He is sanctioned in Russia, as am I, and we have both previously chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Russia, so I know today’s announcement will sit uncomfortably with him. I welcome the new sanctions through third countries, but I am very concerned—there will be more concern in Kyiv, quite frankly—about what he calls temporary licences. How long is “temporary”? Unfortunately, this money, through these imports, will continue to fund Putin’s illegal war machine against Kyiv. It will kill women, children and men. While the Government are denying a licence to drill in the North sea, they are, unfortunately, giving Putin a licence to kill.
Chris Bryant
As it happens I am not on the Russian sanctions list, although when I raised this with the Russian—
Chris Bryant
I think I might be on the right hon. Lady’s sanctions list! But in actual fact, when I raised this with the Russian ambassador—I was a bit upset—he said, “Well, we have many lists, Mr Bryant.” I do not know whether I am on a target list, which is maybe slightly different.
I am not ashamed of what we are doing today. As a very stout defender of Ukraine’s right to defend itself, and as somebody who argued for a very long time that we should be trying to make sure that Russian frozen assets were made available to Ukraine, I am proud of what we are doing, because we are introducing a tougher sanctions regime. The only bit we have had to take cognisance of is the fact that the situation in the middle east means that there was a danger of a sudden spike in prices and we had to address that. I very much hope that this will be a very temporary measure. I will be keeping a very watchful eye to make sure that we are able to suspend the licences as soon as we possibly can.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer this really important urgent question. He will know that we must keep at the forefront of our minds our allies in Ukraine who have been fighting this terrible illegal war for many years. I am proud that many of my constituents took in many people from Ukraine at the start of the invasion. Echoing the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), I am concerned about the communication around this issue. A constituent contacted me and said:
“I am one of your constituents and have never had reason to contact you. However, on awaking this morning I am both angry and ashamed by the announcement, snuck out last night, that your government is (partially) lifting sanctions on the purchase of Russian oil.”
Can the Minister reassure me and my constituents that this will be a temporary measure, similar to the sanctions restrictions put in place by the Americans? My understanding is that they will be there for 30 days.
Chris Bryant
Mr Speaker, you will be aware of the phrase that sometimes it is conspiracy and sometimes it is something else. I just want to say that, in relation to communications, there is no conspiracy. Nobody is trying to undermine our support for Ukraine. The statutory instrument on the tougher measures was always going to come into force today. Up until today it was perfectly legal to import Russian products that had been refined in third party countries into the UK. It will no longer be legal to do so. There are several categories under that which will be banned. For instance, it will tackle carbon fibre used in the production of Russian drones, chemicals used in precision missiles, and goods used in emerging technologies such as quantum computing and AI. I want to ensure that these licences will be as temporary as possible. In 2022, along with the Foreign Affairs Committee, I visited Kyiv and Avdiivka, right at the very edge, roughly a fortnight before the full-scale invasion. We saw Russian troops and snipers pointing at Ukrainians. This battle has gone on since 2014, not just since 2022. I can assure my hon. Friend that the British Government stand 100% beside the Ukrainian people.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
For years, Ministers on the Treasury Bench have told us that oil is traded as a global commodity, so it makes no difference where in the world it is taken out of the ground and that, as a consequence, we can wind down production on the UK continental shelf—availability of supply would continue. Given what the Minister has had to announce today, is he satisfied that that argument still holds water?
Chris Bryant
Well, it has not been an argument that I myself have advanced, although obviously I stand by my Labour colleagues if that is the argument that they have been making—I am part of a team, after all. The point I would make in relation to drilling in the North sea is that I think it is a wrong argument to say that if we were to issue new licences today that would affect the energy prices we are facing because of the situation in the middle east. What we absolutely have to do is make sure that we deal with market instability today. It was not our choice to have this war in Iran. We have not taken part in it. We think it was a mistake to enter into it without a plan. I am very aware, from conversations I have had with many of my counterparts in the Gulf—perhaps there will be more on that later on today—that these issues are at the forefront of their minds.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Can the Minister assure me that we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends? Can he particularly reassure my Ukrainian constituents? One of them has written to me to say that
“one of the biggest issues facing civilians in Ukraine is the constant uncertainty—not only physical safety, but the emotional pressure of living with disrupted homes, schools, work, healthcare and family life.”
They are standing firm and I am sure that he can reassure me that we are standing firm by their side.
Chris Bryant
Absolutely. In Kyiv earlier this year, I was really proud to see one of the bridges, which had been blown up when the Russians were advancing in the hope of taking Kyiv immediately, that has been reconstructed with UK Export Finance support and British steel made in Glasgow—it only took five weeks to transport it out there. It was designed by British engineers, working with Turkish counterparts. I am really proud of the work we are doing on reconstruction in Ukraine. I thought it was absolutely despicable when I was there that Putin was deliberately targeting energy supplies in Kyiv, so as to freeze people into submission. That, in my mind, is a war crime.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Before the Minister pointed it out himself, I was going to acknowledge his long and honourable record of opposing the killer in the Kremlin when he was on the Opposition Back Benches. I have no reason to believe that he has changed his mind, but does he agree with me that this complex issue has been handled very, very clumsily, to put it mildly? Would it not have been better to have made a statement, rather than having to respond to an urgent question? Were the Ukrainians given this quite complicated explanation in advance? Will he not concede that if we had not embarked on quite such a doctrinaire journey against further drilling in the North sea, we might not have been put in the position of having to make such an unsavoury and unpalatable decision?
Chris Bryant
The one bit of the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks that I completely agree with is that we have handled this clumsily. That is entirely my fault, and I apologise to all hon. Members, because I think we have ended up giving the wrong impression of what we are trying to do. We are trying to strengthen the regime, not weaken it. We are not waiving any sanction. From today, and for the first time, we have legislation in place that means that it will be illegal to import Russian goods that have been refined in a third country, including India, Turkey and elsewhere. I disagree with the other points he made, but I am grateful for his nice comments about me.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s explanation about what exactly we are doing, and I echo the comments from colleagues across the House about the failure to communicate this effectively in the last 24 hours. I have had very upset constituents getting in touch with me about this issue. One report—from Bloomberg—seems to indicate that there is briefing and counter-briefing across Government at the moment and that this move is a departure from our European colleagues. Can the Minister confirm whether we are in fact departing from our European colleagues on these sanctions?
Chris Bryant
It is true that this piece of the jigsaw in relation to sanctions policy lies across two Departments. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is in charge of sanctions policy, and we in the Department for Business and Trade have responsibility for trade and export licences. That is why there has been a bit of a miscommunication between the two Departments. I have to tell the House that that is entirely my fault and nobody else’s, so if anybody wants to have a go at anybody, they can have a go at me.
On the question about Europe, it is true that the European Union introduced its legislation faster than we did. It did it earlier, before the Iranian conflict came into play. That is one of the reasons why there has been some difference between us. Normally, we try to align ourselves all the way with the European Union and others, but I note that the United States has only today extended its waiver for another month, and I think I am right in saying that Australia and Canada have done something very similar to us. It has been standard practice when we have introduced these kind of sectoral sanctions to do so in a phased way because, apart from anything else, that makes it possible for UK businesses to accommodate themselves.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
There is a really unfortunate supply and demand dichotomy here—and I have to remind the Minister that he is bound by collective responsibility, because while it might be a different Department, it is still his Government. On the one hand, the Government are artificially accelerating the decline in production in the North sea with no reference to domestic demand—they are only hellbent on reducing domestic production. Meanwhile, this carve-out allows Russian oil refined as fuel to come into this economy, which will result in a transaction to the place where it was refined, which will then result in a transaction back to Russia. This will allow the funding of Russia’s war process against our friends in Ukraine. The Minister must concede that.
Chris Bryant
I welcome the hon. Member to his new responsibilities, though I must say that I really liked his predecessor—I got into terrible trouble when I tweeted that, so maybe I should not say it in the House either. It is good to see the hon. Member in his place. He makes an interesting argument and one that I would expect him to make. It is true that I am bound by collective responsibility. I am not trying to evade that; it is just that sometimes I do not know the answers to all the questions that apply to somebody else’s portfolio.
I want to make sure that the hon. Member understands that, up until today, it has been perfectly legal for people to bring products that originated from Russian crude oil and that have been refined in a third country into the UK. It is only now that we are changing that.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As someone who has been sanctioned by the Russian state and worked on tackling financial crime in British business for more than a decade, it was apparent to me after only a cursory review of the gov.uk website that this is a new general licence to allow the roll-out of the new regime that the Minister has mentioned today. I thank him for coming to the House to set the record straight, but can he also assuage my constituents’ fears and say that, although we have heard a lot of rhetoric and bluster in the Chamber today, this really will be a new regime and it will be strengthened?
Chris Bryant
Well, I apologise for the rhetoric and bluster, but it is my general way of doing things, so it seems a particularly cruel attack from my colleague!
The serious point to make is that I am proud of what we are doing today. I am not hiding away from what we are doing, but we could definitely have communicated it better, and that is entirely my fault.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
This is somewhat baffling. I know that the Minister was not here for it, but we had a full day’s debate yesterday on energy supply and no Government Minister mentioned anything to do with this particular issue—hence the need for an urgent question today. The Minister will know that liquid gas, diesel and petroleum are shipped by sea, taking a considerable period of time to get from the port to the UK. Will the Minister set out how the ships—those that have set sail already and those that may be setting off—will be treated once they get to the United Kingdom? That is the important issue that many businesses will want to know about.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. That is one of the reasons we thought it was important to phase the process. Because of the time lag, we needed to make it possible for businesses not to be caught in legal limbo, as it were, as a result of the sanctions coming into force today. It is probably best if I write to him with the details and put a copy of the letter before the House, because it might be useful to other business folk as well. We are providing additional information on the Government website so that people can understand precisely how all this operates.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I do welcome the new sanctions. My concern is over the temporary use of licence agreements, which goes to a bigger issue for the country. We keep talking about the supply side of petroleum instead of the demand side. We need to have a frank and honest conversation with our constituents and the public, as our Australian colleagues did with the Prime Minister down under. Can I encourage the Minister to have honest conversations with the public about the cost of the conflict within the middle east, and about the need to move ourselves further and faster away from petrochemicals to give us the sustainable economy we all need?
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is the tenor of the conversation that has been happening. He will know that the Prime Minister has been chairing regular meetings to consider the impact of the situation in the middle east. This is undoubtedly one area where we had to take action to minimise the instability in the market so as to protect British businesses—which are already exposed to energy costs that are high enough, if not too high—and British families. He makes a good point; we should, of course, have these honest conversations with the public.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Rocketing fuel prices are hitting rural families in constituencies like mine, but the answer can never be to play directly into Putin’s hands by weakening sanctions, just as Ukraine is finally pushing back against Russia’s war machine. Does the Minister agree that we can both stand firmly with our Ukraine allies, maintaining sanctions on Russian jet fuel and diesel that is refined in third countries, while also supporting rural households through a temporary VAT cut on heating oil and a 10p cut to fuel duty, which could be funded through a levy on big banks’ eye-watering profits?
Chris Bryant
I think the hon. Gentleman wrote the first half of that question before he heard what I had to say on the subject. I want to make it absolutely clear, once again, that up until now it has been possible for people to perfectly legally import into the UK refined products that have been processed in third countries but that originated from Russian crude oil. That is changing because of the legislation we have introduced, which applies from today. We are doing this in a phased way, which is why the licences exist.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are already taking very seriously the issues that affect many, many families, including in my constituency. The number of people who rely on oil to heat their homes is not very large, but we have already taken action, and around 3 million households across the whole UK are benefiting. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking at these issues very closely.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for clarifying that sanctions on Russia are tougher today than they were yesterday, but fundamentally the furore around licences to phase in the new regulations arises because we have an economy reliant on jet fuel, and as long as that remains the case these issues will continue to arise. What conversations is he having with others across Government to move us faster and even further away from our economy’s reliance on jet fuel?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that these sanctions are not only implemented but effective. We need—I think the previous Government felt this as well—a constant ratchet or a whack-a-mole approach to tackling any new diversion there might be that Putin might take advantage of. He talked about jet fuel, and I am feeling a bit guilty because unfortunately last night I had to fly back from Strasbourg—that was just as well, because otherwise I would not have been able to answer the UQ. He made a good point, and we also need to ensure that the aviation industry in its totality is more cognisant of where it needs to get to on net zero.
Esther McVey
Can the Minister explain why the Government see fit to ban new licences to drill for oil and gas in the North sea—which would have provided the UK with energy security, affordability, reliability and tax revenue—while buying oil from Russia, which is a betrayal of UK citizens and Ukrainian citizens, and playing into Putin’s hands?
Chris Bryant
I am terribly sorry; I am so fond of the right hon. Lady that I think of her in a commonplace way, or should I say a common-sense way? She was, of course, the Minister for common sense—although, despite that, she never took any measures to stop the import of Russian oil into the UK when she was a Minister. Oh dear.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I appreciate the clarity that the Minister has provided, telling us that the overall effect of this country’s package of sanctions will mean that Russia is much more under the screw than it was. One of the effects of Trump’s war in Iran is that the cost of Russian oil has been inflated, and that is perpetuating the war in Ukraine. Does the Minister agree that we need to redouble our efforts to enhance our domestic renewable and new nuclear production of energy so that we are less dependent on fossil fuel markets and less likely to be contributing to perpetuating conflicts around the world?
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. Notwithstanding his point that every time the price of oil around the world goes up, that is a benefit to Putin—that is one of the problems and ironies of the situation in the middle east at the moment—I would also point out that Russia’s economy is stagnating because of the sanctions we have imposed. Growth has slowed to a crawl; this month, Russia slashed its economic growth forecast again, and international sanctions have deprived Russia of at least $450 billion since February 2022, which is the equivalent of four years of funding for Putin’s illegal war. We need to keep that up. It is tough, but we need to do so to ensure that he does not have victory.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
No matter how the Minister tries to confuse the issue by talking about the situation up until now and the new arrangements, which are meant to tighten up sanctions today, the fact remains that we are now granting permits for Russian oil to come into the United Kingdom. He may justify that, as he has done on a number of occasions during this discussion, by saying that this is only for the short term. But does he not recognise that, as long as we stop exploiting our own resources and taxing our own oil refineries, we will be dependent on Russian oil, and we will be financing Putin’s war?
Chris Bryant
I will try again. The point I am making is not the point the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am making. The point I am making is that, up until now, we have been doing precisely what he said. We have been allowing Russian oil processed in other countries to come into the UK without any impediment whatsoever. That is precisely what we are putting an end to. If he had stood up last week, the week before that, the week before that, or the week before that, and called for us to put an end to it, I would have had more time for the comments he just made.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his usual clarity and candour on this issue, and I welcome the new sanctions package. Will he confirm one last time for me, my Ukrainian residents and our friends in Ukraine that this is a new package of sanctions, part of which we are introducing in a phased manner, and that there is no loosening of any sanctions that are already in place?
Chris Bryant
We have not suspended, waived or got rid of any existing sanctions of any kind whatsoever. We are introducing new sanctions. This is our latest set of sanctions. In fact, I have also been keen to try to ensure that when things are exported to a third country legally but we think they might end up in Russia, which would then be a breach of the sanctions, a licence is needed—for the first time. We are introducing new legislation for end-use sanctions controls, and we will be the first country to do so. We are determined to ensure that Putin does not win his war.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I had constituents in the Gallery today, and they will be aghast to find out that their flight back to Scotland is potentially using Russian fuel. Surely, regardless of whether that was the case before, we need to grip that issue. We also need to grip the reality of the North sea. We keep hearing that North sea oil is a declining asset, but the Norwegians do not see it that way; they are expanding their exploration of the North sea. We have untapped resources, west of Shetland. Surely we need to look again at domestic supply.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but up until today it was perfectly legal for people to use Russian crude oil that had been processed in a third country and brought into the UK. The hon. Member is inventing a saga that does not exist.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Ukrainians in our constituencies woke up to headlines about watering down sanctions. Why are the Government not prioritising measures that would permanently cut bills and reduce fossil-fuel dependence, including fully removing the renewables obligation levy and fast-tracking energy market reform?
Chris Bryant
I thought that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of moving towards renewables. Sorry, I may have misunderstood the question; if so, the hon. Member may wish to grab me afterwards. As I said, the problem about the headlines this morning was that some journalists saw half of the story, and not the whole story. That is entirely down to me, and is my fault.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The sanctions on Russian gas and oil were put in place for good reason, as we know, but I seriously question how environmentally friendly it is to import supplies of gas and oil, when we have one of the largest sources of natural resources just off the coast of Scotland. The Government continue to refuse to allow it to be further explored. The madness of the pursuit of net zero is exposed by the fact that there is more pollution involved in importing these products, instead of drilling for our own, which would also create jobs and revenue for the Exchequer.
Chris Bryant
We are putting an end to the import of these products from Russia. We want to debilitate and degrade the Russian war machine. The point I would make to the hon. Member is that even if we were to grant licences today for further exploration, that would not solve the problem that we have today, arising from the instability in the energy market because of the war in Iran.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Picking up the theme of mishandled communications, and the anxiety that they caused many of our constituents, the Financial Times is still reporting an easing of sanctions, as is the BBC. Those are not outlets known for hyperbole. Perhaps the Government could issue a correction to major media outlets.
Chris Bryant
I am trying to do that here, now, live. Indeed, I went to see the BBC earlier and gave it a clip. Just to be absolutely clear, we are not suspending any sanctions. The sanctions regime in the UK is tougher today than it was yesterday, a week ago, or a year ago. I am certain that as I in the Department for Business and Trade and my colleagues in the Foreign Office continue to look into the constant diversion and subversion of our sanctions regime, the regime will get even tougher as the months and years proceed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I would hate to be deprived of a question. I thank the Minister very much for his sincere and helpful answers. May I say this gently to him? Many of us believe that there is a very clear solution to this problem. If this Government want true energy security, then instead of forcing British businesses to navigate complex legal loopholes in order to import foreign energy, and instead of pressing ahead, through the energy independence Bill, with a permanent ban on our using our own resources, they must scrap the ideological roadblocks, approve crucial domestic projects, such as development of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields, and unleash the full potential of British North sea production. Will the Minister please discuss that with Cabinet members, and demand that common sense and energy security be prioritised over what any single Government Minister says on the subject?
Chris Bryant
All roads lead to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Mr Speaker; certainly, all urgent questions do. I was not here for the debate yesterday because I was in Strasbourg, but I feel as if I am hearing some of what was rehearsed then, and I do not want to repeat the arguments. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments about my sincerity on this. The only point I would make to him is that I am desperate to make sure that the Ukrainian people are able to assert their freedom and defeat Putin. We will do everything in our power to secure that outcome.
Trade Negotiations
Chris Bryant Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The UK has concluded a free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—as friends and valued partners.
The UK’s ties with the Gulf are deep, historic, and future-focused. This deal is founded upon our shared commitment to open trade, mutual prosperity, and the long-term economic success of all our nations.
The Government recognise the challenges UK businesses are facing as a result of the situation in the middle east and are already taking action to support firms through this period of uncertainty, by supporting critical supply chains, strengthening domestic steel production and boosting consumer confidence. Ministers are working closely with business groups and industry leaders to understand the pressures facing industry and, as the situation develops, will be agile in responding.
Today’s agreement with the GCC supports that wider, co-ordinated response—providing the legal certainty and long-term stability that businesses tell us they need to plan, invest and grow with confidence. Alongside domestic action through the industrial strategy and small business plan, this deal forms part of a coherent strategy to build economic resilience and support long-term growth in trade and exports.
This deal is one of the most ambitious that the GCC has ever concluded and marks the first FTA it has concluded with a G7 nation. It reflects and strengthens the deep, long-standing partnership between our nations, built on decades of shared commitment to open trade, mutual prosperity and the long-term economic success of all our nations.
The GCC is equivalent to the UK’s 10th largest trading partner1, with total trade between the UK and GCC valued at £53 billion in 20252. This deal is estimated to grow trade between us by almost 20%3, supporting economic growth and putting money in people’s pockets. The deal could add an estimated £3.7 billion annually to the UK economy in the long run when compared to 2040 projections and £1.9 billion a year to real wages4. When combined with the India FTA, the two agreements are estimated to add over £8 billion a year in real terms5, helping to drive forward our modern industrial strategy. This agreement responds directly to the priorities raised by UK businesses and includes measures that will meaningfully improve the ease of doing business with the GCC.
As the second largest services exporter in the world6, with strengths in sectors such as financial and professional business services, the UK is well matched to support the Gulf’s ambitions to diversify its economies. This FTA gives UK firms the tools and certainty they need to expand their presence across the region. This includes locking in market access across a broad range of sectors for our services firms. This will ensure that UK businesses are provided with guaranteed terms on which to trade, reducing the risk of future restrictions that could impact their operations. This includes limitations on foreign ownership or requirements to set up a base in the GCC to supply their services in the region. We are also providing greater regulatory transparency in telecoms, including authorisation and licensing processes, ensuring that businesses can access GCC regulations and that regulatory processes are fair and efficient.
The GCC has taken its most ambitious commitments on business mobility to date, which will improve consistency and transparency of visa requirements and processes, and provide increased certainty on the level of access that businesses can enjoy. This will support UK firms to deliver services in the region, in support of the GCC’s diversification plans.
For the first time, the GCC has committed not to impose disproportionate or unjustified requirements on firms to store their data locally in the bloc, giving UK tech firms greater confidence that they will not face costly new burdens. The far-reaching digital provisions in this agreement will drive innovation and support the use of emerging digital technologies through UK-GCC co-operation. This will enable both sides to take advantage of opportunities when new products and services emerge, including in areas such as artificial intelligence, paperless trade and clean energy.
For goods exporters, the deal will make trade cheaper, faster, and more predictable, cutting red tape, reducing and removing tariffs and simplifying customs processes. Based on existing trade, the deal will eliminate duties worth an estimated £580 million a year on UK goods exported to the GCC once fully implemented.
Some £360 million of these estimated duties will be removed on day one of the agreement entering into force7. After a decade, 90% of GCC tariff lines will have tariffs removed, unlocking tariff-free access for around 93% of UK goods exports based on existing trade. Two thirds of UK exports will enter the GCC tariff-free immediately after the deal enters into force, delivering a major boost for UK manufacturers, food and high-value brands8. The UK is also liberalising tariffs on all current GCC exports from day one under this agreement, supporting supply chains and helping UK businesses to reduce input costs. The deal excludes pork, chicken and eggs from tariff liberalisation.
This deal removes tariffs on British exports, including automotives, aerospace, and food and drink such as smoked salmon and baked goods. UK businesses will benefit from tailored rules of origin, digital trade provisions such as paperless trading, a ban on customs duties on electronic transmissions and provisions allowing UK exporters, should they wish, to complete and self-certify their own origin documentation after initial registration. This was a top ask from businesses, helping to remove the often costly and time-consuming requirements which often deter smaller firms from exporting.
Investment is a core pillar of our growth mission, and this deal lays the foundation for even deeper UK-GCC investment ties, protecting investment on both sides and driving growth for years to come. The GCC is already a key source of inward investment into the UK, with total foreign direct investments, portfolio, derivatives and other investment assets and liabilities between the UK and Gulf Arabian countries—which include the GCC nations, as well as Yemen and Iraq9—amounting to £485 billion in 202410. UK investors from a range of sectors also have a long history of investing in the Gulf. In this deal we have agreed comprehensive levels of protections for UK and GCC investors and their investments, ensuring they will receive fair and non- discriminatory treatment that will give investors the confidence to make long-term investment decisions. It will also provide transparent, independent legal recourse to resolve disputes if treaty obligations are breached. This will help to ensure that projects in both regions have the certainty they need to succeed.
Within this FTA, we have also agreed a package of commitments on environment, labour, women’s economic empowerment, and animal welfare that go further than anything the GCC has agreed before in an FTA, opening new avenues for collaboration on shared priorities. These include commitments to address barriers that are specific to women in trade, as well as upholding the labour standards that underpin fair competition for businesses on both sides.
The UK will continue to work closely with our Gulf partners—across trade, investment, defence and security and to build prosperity across all our nations. We will now go through the steps to prepare this treaty for signature, and I look forward to updating the House further on this agreement in due course.
1,2https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/uktotaltradeallcountriesseasonallyadjusted
3DBT modelling
4DBT modelling
5DBT modelling
6UNCTAD
7Duty estimates are based on GCC import figures from ITC trademap, using 2024 data for all countries except Oman, which uses 2023 data. Duties are calculated using the GCC common external tariff and country-specific tariffs as of 2022. For countries where HS6-level data is used (Oman, Qatar and the UAE), the lowest MFN tariff within the HS6 subheading is applied to provide a conservative estimate.
8Estimates based on GCC import figures from ITC trademap, using 2024 data for all countries except Oman, which uses 2023 data.
9Yemen and Iraq are not a part of this FTA.
10https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/10geographicalbreakdownoftheukinternationalinvestmentpositionthepinkbook2016 Gulf Arabian in this instance refers to GCC members states, in addition to Yemen and Iraq. Due to data limitations, it is not possible to calculate the value of GCC assets in the UK collectively.
[HCWS52]
Business and Trade
Chris Bryant Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Law
Of course, I will always welcome the fact that Scotland punches above its weight, whether it be industries abroad or investment in Scotland. Indeed, under the SNP, foreign direct investment has been higher in Scotland over the last 10 years than anywhere else in the UK outside of London—something I would expect the UK Government to also celebrate. Instead, we learned through a leaked memo this week that the Prime Minister told senior Ministers of the Government to go against the wishes of the Scottish Government when taking decisions. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister? Does he not agree that Scotland makes the best decisions when it is the people of Scotland who make those decisions, which will happen only when it becomes independent?
Chris Bryant
It is like an open goal, isn’t it, Mr Speaker? Sorry—you do not have a view.
I believe that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than by going it alone. That is why I am a passionate supporter of the Union. Of course there are specific things about the Scottish economy that we want to drive forward. For instance, 54% of Scottish exports go into the European Union.
[Official Report, 12 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 477.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
Of course there are specific things about the Scottish economy that we want to drive forward. For instance, 54% of Scottish goods exports go into the European Union.
Andrew Griffith
The Government do not create jobs; business does. With unemployment rising, this is the last chance to ask the Secretary of State a question ahead of the start of April when a tsunami of business rate rises will hit. Shops and restaurants will see a 50% increase on average and the business rates of hotels will double. He and I both represent wonderful Sussex constituencies full of hospitality, high street and tourism businesses, but young people need those jobs. For their sake and for others, will he finally postpone his business rate rise?
United Kingdom Trade Envoy Programme
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade has today made the following appointment to the United Kingdom’s trade envoy programme.
The United Kingdom’s trade envoys are important to this Government’s growth agenda. They support Ministers to deliver trade and investment outcomes within the industrial and trade strategies and attract foreign direct investment across UK regions.
Working in close partnership with our ambassadors, high commissioners, and His Majesty’s trade commissioners, trade envoys support deeper bilateral trade relationships, lead trade missions, welcome inward delegations, and address market access challenges to ensure British firms can compete and succeed.
The role as a United Kingdom trade envoy is unpaid and voluntary with cross-party membership from both Houses.
The Secretary of State is pleased to appoint:
The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to the Republic of Korea.
Today’s appointment means there are now 32 trade envoys focusing on 73 markets.
[HCWS1544]
World Trade Organisation: 14th Ministerial Conference
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The World Trade Organisation’s 14th ministerial conference took place in Yaoundé, Cameroon, between Thursday 26 March and Sunday 29 March 2026. I attended alongside the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle).
MC14 took place against a complex geopolitical backdrop and in an uncertain global economic climate. The UK worked shoulder to shoulder with a wide range of members to deliver the change the WTO needs. I joined the UK delegation as one of the six reform facilitators.
I was disappointed that, despite these efforts, members were unable to agree substantial multilateral outcomes at this conference.
While some outcomes were agreed—recommitting to fisheries subsidies negotiations; reaffirming work to support small and vulnerable economies; and moving discussions on proposals around sanitary and phytosanitary and technical barriers to trade to technical committees—they were high-level and procedural.
Work will continue in Geneva on outcomes that were close to agreement, with the May general council providing the first opportunity to assess what might be possible with the membership.
These are outcomes on areas of importance to the UK and global trade more broadly, including setting a path forward on WTO reform, and extension of the moratorium on e-commerce, which keeps digital trade costs low by banning customs duties on electronic transmissions such as software and video streaming.
The lack of further agreement in Yaoundé meant that the e-commerce moratorium fell, as did the moratorium on non-violation situation complaints regarding the trade-related aspects of intellectual property agreement. As a stopgap, to reduce the uncertainty of the lapse of the e-commerce moratorium for UK businesses, the UK has joined 22 other members committing to continuing the e-commerce moratorium between signatories until the next general council this May. This is in addition to the permanent moratorium between the UK and 65 other members provided by the plurilateral agreement on e-commerce, which was launched at MC14, and on which the UK was a key partner in securing a positive outcome.
Despite the challenging environment and disappointing multilateral outcomes, the UK remained a constructive partner throughout and bolstered its international influence and reputation, both on WTO reform, where I drove development of text, and on plurilateral agreements, where the UK joined innovative approaches to implement the agreements on e-commerce and investment facilitation for development. The ECA is a significant step forward in global digital trade, cutting costs and lowering barriers for businesses in the UK and worldwide. It is projected to increase participants’ GDP by up to 0.43%. The IFDA, between 129 members, will make it easier to invest in developing countries, and is expected to increase global GDP by up to 1%. These agreements are a major milestone for the WTO, demonstrating the impact plurilaterals can have.
I was pleased that the UK also announced £13 million in technical assistance and capacity building support ahead of MC14 to enable developing economies to participate in the global trading system, and a further £1 million is already committed to the WTO fisheries fund.
The UK will continue to work with those willing to make progress where we need it. This includes seeking a comprehensive e-commerce moratorium, and actively driving WTO reform in Geneva. The UK’s communication on WTO reform (6 March) sets out our vision for a more relevant, flexible and accessible WTO. We will work to pursue this, including by addressing trade imbalances by tackling market distorting practices, establishing new rules on contemporary areas like digital and environment, and achieving a full-functioning dispute settlement system to ensure accountability. This will complement our ongoing work beyond the WTO pursuing high-quality FTAs that support businesses, workers and consumers, while expanding our network of partnerships across global markets.
[HCWS1529]
Call for Input: New Powers to Protect UK from Acts of Adverse Economic Pressure
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
As an open trading nation, the UK thrives on its connections with the world. International trade fuels economic growth in the UK, and delivers significant benefits for businesses, workers and consumers alike. However, rising geopolitical tensions and growing uncertainty are reshaping global trade dynamics. Unfair trading practices are emerging that disrupt supply chains and distort competition, sometimes aimed at forcing changes in law or policy.
When supply chains are disrupted, it is working people who feel it first—in higher prices at the checkout, in uncertainty about their jobs, and in the disruption to the businesses and industries their communities depend on.
That is why we recognised these risks in our Trade Strategy, published last year. We are already taking action to make our economy more resilient and secure, and we work closely with allies through the G7, the World Trade Organisation and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership to challenge unfair practices wherever they occur. Now we are asking whether additional powers are needed, and on Thursday 9 April we launched a call for input to consider the case for developing new powers to reinforce our ability to respond to acts of adverse economic pressure against the UK.
We are seeking to understand whether the UK Government should strengthen the UK’s economic security and resilience against acts of adverse economic pressure, and if so how, while supporting growth, competitiveness, and our international obligations. This call for input will be open for 10 weeks and will aim to gather views from a broad range of stakeholders on the opportunities, risks, and implementation considerations associated with taking new powers. This includes perspectives from businesses, industry, consumer organisations, other representative and sector bodies, as well as insights from think-tanks, academics, the devolved Governments, Crown dependencies, and overseas territories.
We welcome the Business and Trade Committee’s recent inquiry into economic security and their agreement that the Government should explore new powers in this area.
To support this, my Department has published a summary of the Government’s existing powers in this area and set out the case for considering new powers, including what form such powers could take. A copy of the call for input document has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on www.gov.uk.
This is about one thing: protecting working people from economic shocks they did nothing to cause. If new powers are required, we will introduce them. We will always try diplomacy first. But if that fails, families, businesses, and communities across the UK deserve to know that their Government have the tools to stand up for them. We are not changing who we are as a trading nation; we are making sure we can stay who we are, even when others play by different rules. This is what this call for input is about, and that is how we deliver growth that works for everyone.
[HCWS1491]