This briefing outlines the purpose of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the UK Government plans for a UK CBAM, the impact of the EU CBAM, and international trade considerations. It also sets out commentary on a need for global cooperation, and further reading.

This briefing outlines the purpose of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the UK Government plans for a UK CBAM, the impact of the EU CBAM, and international trade considerations. It also sets out commentary on a need for global cooperation, and further reading.

Letter dated 02/12/2025 from Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill to Peers regarding questions raised during the Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill: WTO’s Article III, risk assessment on subsides dispute, UK Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and relation with EU ETS, discussions with US, fuel providers and using crops as feedstock. 3p.

Letter dated 02/12/2025 from Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill to Peers regarding questions raised during the Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill: WTO’s Article III, risk assessment on subsides dispute, UK Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and relation with EU ETS, discussions with US, fuel providers and using crops...

As states sanction Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, this briefing sets out the arguments around seizing another state's assets, and explains the intensifying debate on how international law affects sanctions.

As states sanction Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, this briefing sets out the arguments around seizing another state's assets, and explains the intensifying debate on how international law affects sanctions.

This briefing discusses the WTO’s role in a context of geopolitical tensions and global economic shifts. It also looks at efforts to overcome current challenges.

This briefing discusses the WTO’s role in a context of geopolitical tensions and global economic shifts. It also looks at efforts to overcome current challenges.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, if she will make an assessment of the applicability to decisions on tax treatment in the UK of the precedent established in the October 1958 GATT dispute initiated by Austria against Italy, case reference GD/54, and the resolution agreed between those...

To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, if she will make an assessment of the applicability to decisions on tax treatment in the UK of the precedent established in the October 1958 GATT dispute initiated by Austria against Italy, case reference GD/54, and the resolution agreed between those...

To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, which countries have used GATT Article XXIV to ensure tariff-free access to their markets in each of the last ten years.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, which countries have used GATT Article XXIV to ensure tariff-free access to their markets in each of the last ten years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, whether the EU chief negotiator has stated that the EU is willing to agree to the implementation of Article XXIV of the GATT in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, whether the EU chief negotiator has stated that the EU is willing to agree to the implementation of Article XXIV of the GATT in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

The Government and the European Commission have been clear that our

trading relationship must comply with WTO rules. Under the withdrawal agreement, the implementation period is compatible with GATT article 24. In addition, paragraph 17 of the political declaration envisages the UK and the EU forming a free trade area, which will also be compatible with article 24.

The Government and the European Commission have been clear that our

trading relationship must comply with WTO rules. Under the withdrawal agreement, the implementation period is compatible with GATT article 24. In addition, paragraph 17 of the political declaration envisages the UK and the EU forming a free trade area, which will also be compatible with article 24.

On an all-party visit to the World Trade Organisation, it was made clear that if there was the prospect of a negotiated free trade agreement in the future, tariff-free trade could continue. Does the Minister agree that if the EU does not agree to that negotiated free trade in the future, which would allow tariff-free trade on leaving, that will be because it wants to punish the UK, not come to the best agreement in the interests of its people?

On an all-party visit to the World Trade Organisation, it was made clear that if there was the prospect of a negotiated free trade agreement in the future, tariff-free trade could continue. Does the Minister agree that if the EU does not agree to that negotiated free trade in the future, which would allow tariff-free trade on leaving, that will be because it wants to punish the UK, not come to the best agreement in the interests of its people?

I am not in a position to credibly assess the motivations of the European Union. The British Government’s position has been clear—it is a long-standing position—that it is in our mutual interest to come to a trading relationship between the UK and the EU. We will continue to seek to do so.

I am not in a position to credibly assess the motivations of the European Union. The British Government’s position has been clear—it is a long-standing position—that it is in our mutual interest to come to a trading relationship between the UK and the EU. We will continue to seek to do so.

Yes, it is possible. The question is whether the EU would reciprocally agree, and that is what the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is questioning, as he does not feel that it is a probable outcome. There is a distinction between those two positions; I have addressed it, but I am very happy to address it again.

Yes, it is possible. The question is whether the EU would reciprocally agree, and that is what the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is questioning, as he does not feel that it is a probable outcome. There is a distinction between those two positions; I have addressed it, but I am very happy to address it again.

It simply will not do: the answers given to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) simply were not adequate. The Secretary of State was given a simple yes or no question; will he have another try? Yes or no: is it possible to have one of those transition deals such as a GATT 24 deal—the things that Prime Minister candidates have been talking about—without an implementation period for it to come in? Yes or no?

It simply will not do: the answers given to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) simply were not adequate. The Secretary of State was given a simple yes or no question; will he have another try? Yes or no: is it possible to have one of those transition deals such as a GATT 24 deal—the things that Prime Minister candidates have been talking about—without an implementation period for it to come in? Yes or no?

In a letter to the Secretary of State this morning, I said that he has a duty to give an honest assessment of the difficult choices facing the next Prime Minister. He will be aware that in recent days his preferred candidate for Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), has made a number of misleading statements about Brexit. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, could the Secretary of State make it clear today, first, that it is simply not possible to guarantee no tariffs under a no-deal Brexit—in particular, can he scotch the nonsense spouted about article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which, as he well knows, is simply not available under a no-deal scenario—secondly, that technological solutions for the Northern Ireland border do not currently exist; and thirdly, that the UK cannot cherry-pick the withdrawal agreement?

In a letter to the Secretary of State this morning, I said that he has a duty to give an honest assessment of the difficult choices facing the next Prime Minister. He will be aware that in recent days his preferred candidate for Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), has made a number of misleading statements about Brexit. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, could the Secretary of State make it clear today, first, that it is simply not possible to guarantee no tariffs under a no-deal Brexit—in particular, can he scotch the nonsense spouted about article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which, as he well knows, is simply not available under a no-deal scenario—secondly, that technological solutions for the Northern Ireland border do not currently exist; and thirdly, that the UK cannot cherry-pick the withdrawal agreement?

There used to be a scurrilous rumour in the House that when a Minister got advance notice of questions, it was perhaps the work of the Whips Office

tipping them off. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy, because he actually emailed me his questions half an hour before Question Time—he has always been a courteous fellow, but this morning he has exceeded himself. Never mind “buy one, get one free”, this is a four-in-one question.

In his letter, the right hon. and learned Gentleman listed a number of issues. Because he sent the letter ahead of Question Time, the first of them has already been addressed by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who asked about GATT. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, there is a difference between what is possible and what he may argue is probable, but it is a distinction that the candidates have addressed.

As for side deals and cherry-picking, again there is an inconsistency. I have been asked by the House on a cross-party basis, following what is referred to as the Costa amendment, to seek a side deal with the European Union to protect citizens’ rights, and I am happy to do so, but there is that inconsistency. The House has called for me to reach out to the European Commission, as indeed I have, because I agree with the House that it is right to protect citizens’ rights, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that side deals are cherry-picking and should not be sought.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about technology. He will know that, in the Strasbourg statement, the EU itself has accepted that technology has a role to play on the border. Indeed, it stands ready to work with us as soon as the withdrawal agreement has been ratified. What is getting in the way of that is the Labour party’s consistent opposition to the withdrawal agreement—and that is because, notwithstanding the manifesto on which he stood, the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s true position is that he wishes us to remain in the EU. That is what his letter did not say, yet that is what he actually means.

There used to be a scurrilous rumour in the House that when a Minister got advance notice of questions, it was perhaps the work of the Whips Office

tipping them off. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy, because he actually emailed me his questions half an hour before Question Time—he has always been a courteous fellow, but this morning he has exceeded himself. Never mind “buy one, get one free”, this is a four-in-one question.

In his letter, the right hon. and learned Gentleman listed a number of issues. Because he sent the letter ahead of Question Time, the first of them has already been addressed by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who asked about GATT. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, there is a difference between what is possible and what he may argue is probable, but it is a distinction that the candidates have addressed.

As for side deals and cherry-picking, again there is an inconsistency. I have been asked by the House on a cross-party basis, following what is referred to as the Costa amendment, to seek a side deal with the European Union to protect citizens’ rights, and I am happy to do so, but there is that inconsistency. The House has called for me to reach out to the European Commission, as indeed I have, because I agree with the House that it is right to protect citizens’ rights, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that side deals are cherry-picking and should not be sought.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about technology. He will know that, in the Strasbourg statement, the EU itself has accepted that technology has a role to play on the border. Indeed, it stands ready to work with us as soon as the withdrawal agreement has been ratified. What is getting in the way of that is the Labour party’s consistent opposition to the withdrawal agreement—and that is because, notwithstanding the manifesto on which he stood, the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s true position is that he wishes us to remain in the EU. That is what his letter did not say, yet that is what he actually means.

What discussions he has had with the European Commission on the applicability of Article 24 of the WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in relation to the UK leaving the EU.

What discussions he has had with the European Commission on the applicability of Article 24 of the WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in relation to the UK leaving the EU.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what assessment he has made of the compatibility with the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of a restriction in a trade agreement with the US on the import into the UK of poultry washed with (i) chlorine...

To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what assessment he has made of the compatibility with the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of a restriction in a trade agreement with the US on the import into the UK of poultry washed with (i) chlorine...

To ask the Attorney General, whether he has provided advice to the Prime Minister on whether the Government is able to trigger article 24 of the WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Attorney General, whether he has provided advice to the Prime Minister on whether the Government is able to trigger article 24 of the WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; and if he will make a statement.