PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions - 20 May 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

As it happens I am not on the Russian sanctions list, although when I raised this with the Russian—

You are now!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

The hon. Lady knows that I am very fond of her—

The right hon. Lady.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That brings us to Jim Shannon.

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?

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.