UK-EU Customs Union

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is surely to be congratulated on his timely choice of topic. The hard fact is that both this House and the other place will be debating how to remedy the lamentable post-Brexit deal struck in 2019 for the foreseeable future. I welcome most warmly the maiden speaker who preceded me, the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and the three who will succeed me.

What I regret about the scope of our debate is its failure to address the single most urgent issue in our relationship: the security relationship with other European countries. With Putin continuing his aggression against a democratic European country—Ukraine—and doubts over the attitude of President Trump on this and other issues, there is no time to lose on strengthening European security co-operation and the European pillar of NATO. The failure to agree the first step along that road at the end of last year was totally regrettable and does not reflect well on either side, most prominently, in my view, on the European Union.

I hope the Minister, in replying to this debate, will borrow a phrase from a previous Prime Minister of her party and say that we will not take no for an answer and will persevere with our efforts to build that stronger security relationship.

Many of the items agreed at last May’s UK-EU summit as part of the reset are extraordinarily welcome, and I hope the Minister will give the House an update on the state of negotiations and on the preparations for the next meeting in that series, scheduled for this summer.

The veterinary agreements are clearly essential to remove the many sanitary and phytosanitary obstacles hampering agri-food trade in both directions. The energy agreements on our emissions trading schemes and on co-operation over interlinking connectors and the development of renewable energy projects in the North Sea will equally be mutually beneficial. The EU’s introduction of cross-border adjustment measures a few days ago makes it essential that we avoid those sea bans becoming yet another non-tariff barrier to trade when we need similarity of treatment to prevent the diversion of imports into the EU and resulting damage to ourselves.

A mobility agreement for young people moving in both directions would be a welcome complement to the decision to rejoin Erasmus+. Should we balk at the need to accept, in some areas, continuous adjustment to changes in EU rules? I do not believe so. After all, any British-based company that trades into our largest overseas market, the EU, is already having to meet those rules. There is no impediment to our having stricter rules than the EU. When the Minister replies, can she say where the consultation over rejoining the pan-European rules of origin convention has got to and when the Government will announce a decision on that? I will not comment on the customs union issue, because there is nothing like enough clarity yet on what that might entail to form a judgment. I will listen carefully to those in this debate who support going down that road.

It is often said by commentators that the EU does not rate the reset of the UK-EU relationship as being very high among its crowded order of priorities. No doubt there is some truth in that, but it is not the whole truth. The changes in geopolitical circumstances since the referendum in 2016 have made it more necessary to build a solid new post-Brexit relationship, capable of greater load bearing than the one agreed in 2019. It is essential that we show a firmness of purpose and a restoration of trust and do not repeat the errors of earlier years by squabbling among ourselves over the details of the way ahead.

Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL]

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I am speaking to give strong support to the Second Reading of the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on Palestinian statehood. Why is that so? It is because without recognition of that statehood as part of what has come to be known as a two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel dispute, there will be no lasting peace, justice or prosperity for the countries of the Middle East, and for any interim solution, such as currently under negotiation over Gaza, to prosper, there has to be a horizon of a long-term solution, which I argue is a two-state one, however far away that horizon may be. As for what is sometimes known as “thinking outside the box”, such as Trump’s riviera ideas, they are simply illegal, immoral and impractical. They have no supporters in the region apart from the Netanyahu Government in Israel.

For many years as a loyal British diplomat, I defended the idea that the recognition of Palestinian statehood could come only at the end of a process that settled by negotiation the vexed issues of territory, security, refugees, governance and the status of Jerusalem. So long as Yitzhak Rabin lived, that was a realistic prospect, but he was assassinated for supporting a two-state solution. Since then, the idea of holding back the recognition of Palestinian statehood has become a mirage abandoned by an increasing number of countries around the world, some of them our fellow European democracies. Our Government seem to some extent to have moved down that road too, since they now talk of the recognition of Palestinian statehood at some undefined point during two-state negotiations. However, that step is now in limbo thanks to the refusal of the Israeli Government to contemplate any negotiations for a two-state solution, although I salute those brave Israelis who have this week put their names to a position that is more favourable to a two-state solution.

What sequencing of decision-making, which does not consist simply of the recognition of Palestinian statehood, but goes beyond it to achieve the recognition of Israel’s statehood by every Arab country in the Middle East, could be contemplated and have some chance over time of being achieved? It could be realised by an international conference bringing together all the Arab countries of the region and a wider range of world powers to relaunch two-state negotiations. At that conference, all participants would recognise the statehood of all others, thus bringing about Israel’s recognition of Palestine and Saudi Arabia’s recognition of Israel—to mention the most prominent lacunae in the present arrangements. Negotiations on territory, security, refugees, governance and the status of Jerusalem would then resume, but within the irreversible framework of two states.

The present Bill could help to make that possible without transgressing the unacceptability of giving any governmental or security role to Hamas following its horrendous breaches of international humanitarian law in October 2023 and since; nor would it contain any trace of anti-Semitism since it would treat all states of the region on an equal basis. I hope that with arrangements such as that in mind this Bill could be given an unopposed Second Reading, and I would like the Minister to address the route that I have suggested we might move towards when she replies to the debate.

Europe: Youth Mobility

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his maiden speech. Our paths crossed a little over 10 years ago when he, as a Member of the European Parliament, and I, as the chair of a committee of this House responsible for justice and home affairs, were doing our best to mitigate the somewhat impetuous effort of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to remove the UK from all justice and home affairs legislation. I am glad to say that we were successful then, although we were thwarted by the Brexit process. I welcome the noble Lord to this House, where I am sure he will make a major contribution.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is also to be congratulated and thanked for securing this timely debate on the potential for a UK-EU mobility partnership as part of the Government’s reset of our post-Brexit relationship with the EU, and for his most helpful and illuminating introduction to the debate. This debate is all the more necessary as it provides an opportunity to clear away some of the quantities of disinformation that have swirled around the subject since the idea surfaced in Brussels early last summer, well ahead of the July election here.

To clear up one of those bits of disinformation, the idea has not yet been put to the UK by the EU in any formal sense. It was an idea that the Commission raised with the EU member states, and to which they got a reasonably positive response, but it was not put to us—except by journalists—because there are no current negotiations going on between the UK and the EU, so there was no need to respond to it, positively or negatively. The then Labour Opposition chose to react to it—quite unnecessarily, I have to say—in a way that was interpreted more negatively than was justified.

The second piece of disinformation is that the concept of mobility partnerships for particular age groups and professions is not understood as being as widespread as it is around the world. In no case does it amount to full free movement, and it is often numerically capped. So far as the EU is concerned, the Commissioner who will now be handling the matter in the new Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, made clear last week that any UK-EU scheme would not—I repeat “not”—amount to free movement.

Having got rid of those two main pieces of disinformation, it surely makes sense for the Government to consider carefully the pros and cons of such a mobility partnership. I hope the Minister will say that they will now do that, so that we are in a position to engage constructively if and when the idea is raised with us in the reset negotiations.

So far as your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee is concerned, the idea was studied in the process of preparing the report we made to the Government and the House in April 2023. I was serving as a member of the committee at the time, and we concluded that the idea made a lot of sense and would be in the UK’s interest. When the then Government reacted to our conclusion, they did not agree, but they were a different Government. Our report, which was subscribed to by a committee of all parties and none, is surely therefore worth looking at again now.

Since the time of that report by your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee, I would suggest that the case for giving positive consideration to a UK-EU mobility partnership has become much more compelling. Following our departure from the EU almost five years ago to the day, the opportunities for those in this age bracket to be likely to be covered by any mobility partnership have shrunk dramatically on both sides of the channel. Brexit has deprived them of many of the openings they had when we were a member of the EU.

School visits have virtually collapsed; access to the ever more successful Erasmus scheme, to which other non-EU countries belong, has lapsed; knowledge of other European languages in this country has continued to slide; the activities of performing artists of all kinds have been hit hard; and young professionals in a whole range of specialisations have ceased to have easy access to jobs on both sides of the channel. That is a pretty sorry litany, and I could go on. Moreover, the sign of interest in a mobility partnership with us, which we have heard from Brussels, means that there is a good chance that such an approach would fulfil one crucial characteristic for success in negotiation: mutual benefit to both sides.

The time has surely come to stop sucking our teeth, to stop repeating constantly the mantra “We have no plans for a mobility partnership”, and to give the whole idea a thorough and open-minded consideration. After all, we might discover some help there for the Government’s top priority of stimulating growth.

Finally, on a more general point, it does not make sense and is not in our national interest for us to debate every idea for improving the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU as if it was a rerun of the damagingly divisive debates we had between 2016 and 2019 over the principle of our EU membership. The debate we are having today is not part of that and should not be treated as if it was.