The Foreign Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into the Government’s proposed reset of the UK-EU relationship. The inquiry will consider all facets of the reset, across the three “pillars” articulated by the Government (security, safety and prosperity) with a particular focus on how the reset process can be engaged to ensure the UK-EU partnership …
| Title | HC No. | Published | Items | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: … | HC 857 | 4 Mar 2026 | 85 | Responded |
The EU is a key partner for the UK. The relationship is more stable now than it has been for some time, but significant challenges remain and there are ample opportunities to improve it further. We are supportive of Government efforts to address these challenges, rebuilding trust and improving the …
We agree that faithful implementation of the existing agreements with the EU is key to the stability of the overall UK-EU relationship, as well as to the prospects of any substantive improvements to it. Regrettably, Brexit itself and the subsequent Windsor Framework arrangements for Northern Ireland have repeatedly been a …
We welcome the continued efforts being made by all parties to reach a new Agreement on Gibraltar. This should bring an end to nearly 10 years of uncertainty and ensure the continued fluidity of the border with Spain, without diminishing UK sovereignty. We hope that a treaty that safeguards UK …
We ask the Government to provide an update on its envisaged timetable for publication and ratification of the draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar. Given its constitutional and political importance, we also request that the Government makes time in the House of Commons for a debate on the Agreement, prior to …
The Government’s deal with the EU to extend access to British waters for EU fishing vessels by 12 years came as a~ surprise for many in the industry. Irrespective of the merits of the agreement, the Government should have consulted and managed expectations accordingly with the affected sectors ahead of …
While the fisheries deal represents an extension of the status quo, the Government also had the option of using the end of the adjustment period to reduce access to its waters for EU vessels from 2026, or to offer an extension of existing levels of access for a lesser period …
We welcome the Government’s success in securing a time-limited commitment from the EU to restore tariff-free exports for certain steel products at the Lancaster House summit. (Conclusion, Paragraph 38)
With the UK now outside the Customs Union, the risk of future EU tariffs on British steel remains. The Government did not identify the issue of steel tariffs as a priority in its public communications on the “reset”, and it is not at all clear what, if anything, it proposed …
We ask the Government to confirm if the European Commission’s commitment to ‘duly reflect’ historic UK export volumes of Category 17 steel in its new steel tariff regime means that historic UK volumes of such exports will still be able to enter the EU tariff-free from June. We also ask …
We welcome the UK-EU Security and Defence Partnership. It is a useful tool for structured dialogue and cooperation in a key area of mutual interest, without constraining the UK’s ability to conduct its foreign, defence and security policies as it sees fit. We urge the UK, EU and EU Member …
We hope the Security and Defence Partnership will, in particular, facilitate sustained UK-EU cooperation in support of Ukraine’s defence and, by extension, European security. In that context, it is extremely regrettable that the EU Member States in December 2025 were unable to find a united EU position on the use …
We urge the Government to continue discussions with the EU and its Member States with respect to the coordinated use of immobilised Russian Sovereign assets to provide financial support to Kyiv, to ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused. (Recommendation, Paragraph 49)
European security is facing its greatest threat since the end of the Cold War. Russia continues its illegal war on Ukraine and poses an acute threat to the security of the entire European continent. It has intensified its hybrid operations in the UK and across the EU. This threat makes …
The UK is a key player in continued efforts to repel Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and to protect Europe’s security more broadly. Security Action for Europe, as a key EU programme aimed at improving the defence of the European continent, would clearly be more effective with greater involvement of Britain’s …
It is therefore extremely disappointing that these negotiations have been a failure so far. This is the direct result of EU demands for a UK financial contribution to Security Action for Europe that was, we agree with the Government, beyond the bounds of the reasonable. As a result, cooperation in …
The EU’s regrettable approach to the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) negotiations does not negate the need for improved UK-EU cooperation on defence industrial matters as a matter of strategic urgency. We therefore recommend the Government continue to seek a deal on cooperation under SAFE, provided the EU is willing …
We also recommend the Government continues to monitor other EU defence initiatives closely, including the security component of its proposed new Competitiveness Fund, and report back to Parliament in due course on whether it believes it worth exploring options to secure closer UK involvement in those EU initiatives in addition …
The Common Understanding agreed with the EU is one of the key outcomes of the Government’s “reset” efforts to date. As and when delivered fully, it should significantly reduce barriers to trade for some sectors, albeit resulting in reduced UK regulatory autonomy due to the commitment to dynamic alignment with …
Reflecting the Government’s approach to setting its EU negotiating objectives, we found there is little in the Common Understanding by way of a connecting thread between its different elements. Some of the Government’s known objectives for the “reset”, as well as numerous proposals made by stakeholders for improvements to the …
British companies lead the world in their work in editing crop genes to prevent disease, eradicate pests and enable crops to survive drought or flooding. Furthermore, the UK maintains some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Since Brexit, the UK has had the power to set animal …
The Government has made the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement with the EU a political priority and convincingly demonstrated its potential economic benefits if properly negotiated. However, important questions remain about the scope of the Agreement and of any exemptions from the UK’s obligation to align with EU rules. (Conclusion, Paragraph …
In particular, we ask the Government to provide further clarity regarding the specific exemptions it will demand with respect to animal welfare, genomic techniques and pesticides at the earliest opportunity, recognising the significant benefits of UK regulatory autonomy in these areas. (Recommendation, Paragraph 73)
We are also concerned about reports of a termination clause requiring potentially significant financial compensation to the EU if the UK were to exit the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement in the future. (Conclusion, Paragraph 74)
We ask the Government to provide examples of other agreements entered into by the UK or EU where termination by one party would require the payment of compensation to the other. This will ensure that Parliament has the proper context when considering the relevant provision of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary …
We support the Government’s intention to act on the commitment made by its predecessor within the Trade and Cooperation Agreement to “seriously consider” linking the UK and EU emissions trading systems. An agreement to that effect would be of benefit to both sides’ climate ambitions. An agreement on Emissions Trading …
We ask the Government to provide clarity at the earliest opportunity about the state of play of its engagement, if any, with the EU to agree an interim arrangement for British exports under the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, while negotiations on a formal agreement to achieve linkage between the …
Citizens of both the UK and EU face a sustained cost of living crisis, and the Committee supports the Government’s efforts to bring down energy bills by making electricity trading with the EU more efficient. However, we note there is no detail yet about the Government’s position for the talks …
More broadly, the Government has now entered into negotiations with the EU on several agreements on the basis of dynamic alignment with relevant EU laws, subject to some exceptions yet to be negotiated. The Committee notes that this will, necessarily, reduce regulatory autonomy in Great Britain, beyond the constraints that …
There is a lack of clarity about the extent to which relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union will be binding on the UK under any new Agreements based on dynamic alignment. (Conclusion, Paragraph 87)
Beyond the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) limited role in dispute resolution where there is a referral of a specific question relating to EU law to that Court, we ask the Government to clarify if these Agreements are also likely to follow the precedent of the EU’s …
There is a range of views on the Committee regarding a Youth Experience Scheme. Whilst there is an understanding that such a scheme would be a way of providing young people on both sides with new opportunities to travel and work, and strengthen cultural and personal ties between the UK …
Most Members of the Committee welcome the agreement on the UK’s re-entry into the Erasmus+ programme, and hope the necessary legal amendments under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement can be made swiftly so that the necessary practical steps can be implemented without delay. (Conclusion, Paragraph 95)
Business mobility is crucial to the UK services industry, and mutual recognition of professional qualifications is one area where the Trade and Cooperation Agreement offers a clear mechanism for progress. We hope the Government and EU will use the new Dialogue to establish no later than the next UK-EU summit …
Given the EU’s parallel concerns about the restrictions of the UK’s visa sponsorship scheme, it is clear that this set of negotiations has two distinct strands. They are likely to require being treated as a package for the Government to achieve its objectives with respect to recognition of professional qualifications. …
In its response to this Report, we ask the Government to provide an update on the progress made through the new Dialogues with the EU on professional qualifications and on business mobility, including ideally a shared UK-EU roadmap on establishing mutual recognition of professional qualifications for priority sectors. (Recommendation, Paragraph …
While it may not shift the dial on the UK’s economic growth prospects, addressing the barriers that make it difficult for UK performers to tour in the EU could make a significant difference to that sector, have a positive cultural impact, and provide a boost to “soft power” for the …
We ask the Government to outline the specific objectives it has put forward in talks with the EU to address the different types of barriers touring performers encounter since Brexit, and what it sees as the remaining barriers to progress ahead of the next UK-EU summit. (Recommendation, Paragraph 103) 92
We ask the Government to provide an update on the progress made in implementing the areas of cooperation agreed with the EU at the Lancaster House summit relating to irregular migration and law enforcement since May 2025. We ask it to clarify in particular what the focus has been of …
Most Members of the Committee broadly welcome the outcome of the Lancaster House summit as a starting point for improved relations with the EU. It has substantially improved the overall political relationship and inserted positive momentum. However, the Government failed to clearly identify its strategic priorities for the summit and, …
The further negotiations with the EU announced at the Lancaster House summit were always going to present complexities. Compromises will need to be made on both sides. We recognise the Government’s desire to make rapid progress in the on-going talks to enable the benefits of a closer relationship for citizens …
Despite Ministers talking about ‘implementing’ the outcomes of the first UK-EU summit, substantive and potentially difficult negotiations with the EU to translate many of them into practice are very much on-going. Significant changes in the UK’s relationship with the EU were never likely to happen quickly. Realistic expectations management by …
We recommend that the Government adopt a more coherent, cross- Departmental approach to communicating progress made in the negotiations with the EU on the various agreements foreseen by the Common Understanding, and in particular refrain from referring to any 93 of these as being ‘secured’ or ‘agreed’ at least until …
Following the deal on Erasmus+ having been finalised, and with Ministers having already expressed their ambition for the proposed UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement to enter into force in 2027, we also ask the Government to outline when, following the conclusion of negotiations, it hopes to bring new formal agreements …
While we recognise that not all things can be negotiated in the open, there is a tension between exposing one’s hand and the transparency necessary for good parliamentary scrutiny. The Government will be better equipped to conduct the negotiations with the EU if it is well-informed through consultation and engagement, …
Given the claimed economic impact of the sectoral agreements envisaged in the Common Understanding is larger than that of most Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), we recommend that the Government mirror the Department for Business and Trade’s commitments on transparency of FTA negotiations in current (and future) negotiations with the EU. …
We are concerned about the evidence we have seen of potential shortcomings in the internal cross-Departmental coordination of the UK negotiating position with the EU, in particular between the Cabinet Office and Departments that hold responsibility for specific policy areas affected by the negotiations. (Conclusion, Paragraph 123)
We recommend that the Cabinet Office takes steps to strengthen inter-departmental flows of information on EU negotiations with other Departments, to ensure sectoral expertise is efficiently incorporated into the UK negotiating position; that Departments are able to communicate on the state of negotiations in their policy areas to the relevant …
It is disappointing that the EU has recently and unilaterally introduced a significant new element into the “reset” negotiations by asking the UK to make a financial contribution to economic development of lower-income EU countries. Such a demand was not included in the Common Understanding. Introducing it in this way …
As for the UK Government position, we note that Ministers have not explicitly ruled out making a financial contribution to the economic development of the EU’s lower-income Member States in a manner similar to Norway and Switzerland. Irrespective of the arguments around the principle of such a contribution’ to the …
We ask the Government to state clearly whether it is prepared to agree to make a financial contribution to the economic development of lower- income EU countries that does not require payments into the general EU budget (for example in a manner similar to the EU-Switzerland financial mechanism), and, if …
The outcome of the Lancaster House summit was a major step change in the UK’s relationship with the EU after Brexit, but it has, naturally, not been able to resolve all outstanding issues. Further pressure for negotiations will remain. We are supportive of the Government’s efforts to pursue additional priorities …
To enable the Strategic Partnership to deliver to its full potential, Ministers will need to produce a clearer and more coherent vision about the EU relationship for the next phase of negotiations. The UK and EU both face far- reaching national and economic security challenges from an increasingly multipolar global …
In many ways, UK and EU security interests intersect and overlap, and actions taken separately may be less effective than shared action. Worse, as the EU’s steel tariffs show, unilateral action by one party to the Strategic Partnership risks damaging the other. Yet even after the Lancaster House summit with …
We ask the Government to provide further information on the implementation of the commitment in the Joint Statement to hold high- level meetings with the EU on “joint strategic interests” in key areas such as trade and migration. We urge the UK and EU to begin convening such meetings regularly …
The UK-EU Security and Defence Partnership could be used as a springboard to further operational cooperation on security and defence matters where this is in the UK interest. It is unclear which specific options, such as a Framework Participation Agreement or an Administrative Arrangement with the European Defence Agency, the …
We ask the Government to set out which of the possible areas of closer cooperation referenced in the Security and Defence Partnership it intends to pursue further, and to provide an update on its work to “explore” UK re-entry into the EU’s Galileo satellite navigation project. (Recommendation, Paragraph 152)
On the balance of the evidence available, we can see that trade barriers with the EU continue to be a major issue for many sectors. We support Government efforts to explore what further opportunities exist for reducing them jointly with the EU. It is unfortunate that statements made in recent …
With both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister now referring consistently to the economic “damage” resulting from the nature of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), we ask the Government to set out its views on which elements of the existing TCA are the source of such “damage”; confirm, …
In particular, in light of recent comments by Ministers, we also ask the Government to clarify if it is reconsidering its “red lines” for the EU negotiations, particularly on the Single Market and customs matters, or if it can envisage any circumstances in which it would be prudent to do …
We recommend in particular that the Government provide further details at the earliest opportunity, and in any event in its response to this Report, about its proposals for sectoral alignment with the EU Single Market in additional areas as suggested by the Prime Minister. This should make clear in particular …
We request the Government to publish, as promised, the headline findings of the Economic Diplomacy Review conducted for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 2024, and to clarify in its Response to this Report what EU-related recommendations Sir Martin Donnelly made and which of these the Government has accepted. …
The evidence submitted to this inquiry shows there are a range of further pragmatic steps that the UK and EU can explore together with the aim of improving their trading relationship, strengthening their combined resilience in the face of global economic shocks and also further reducing barriers to intra-UK trade …
We ask the Government to set out, in its reply to this Report, what options it has raised, or intends to raise, with the European Union to further reduce barriers to trade and investment in the following areas: • Regulatory non-tariff barriers to trade in goods, in particular for chemicals …
There has been considerable uncertainty about the scope and function of the review of the implementation of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) which is required to take place this year. Although the 98 political summit process initiated in May 2025 has, in the Minister’s words, “overtaken” the review, …
It is disappointing that the recent meeting of the Partnership Council did not provide more clarity about the process or intended outcome of the Review. We ask the Government to clarify the outcome of the “evaluation of implementation” of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) that it has apparently undertaken; …
The Falkland Island Government has eloquently made the case for a new chapter on trade relations between the British Overseas Territories (BOTs) and the EU (alongside the separate arrangements for Gibraltar given its unique geographical situation). Given these territories’ small size, the lifting of the tariffs suggested by the Falklands …
We urge the Government to continue to make the case with the EU for a better deal for the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). We ask the Government to clarify what proposals it has made to the European Commission in respect of the trade relations between the BOTs as part of …
While the best moment for an EU White Paper would have been in advance of the first UK-EU summit, we do not believe it is too late given that the Government’s own position on this matter is clearly in flux; there remains a need for a stable, long-term approach to …
To ensure the Strategic Partnership with the EU can deliver on its full potential, we recommend that the Government, with a view to informing its objectives for the next bilateral summit and beyond, publish a White Paper on the future of the UK-EU relationship. This should clearly articulate the overall …
We recommend the Government and the EU should publicly announce the date for the next UK-EU summit as soon as possible, to create momentum in the on-going negotiations and concentrate minds on finding common ground on other outstanding issues to help the Strategic Partnership deliver on its full potential. (Recommendation, …
To date, the Government has been reluctant to be transparent with Parliament about the substance of its position in talks with the EU and progress in those negotiations. We are not asking for Ministers to give, in their words, a “running commentary”, but there is significant scope for improvement in …
We have already made recommendations on extending the Government’s commitments to transparency of Free Trade Agreement negotiations to the negotiations with the EU. Given the cross-cutting nature and complexity of the EU relationship, we also recommend that the Government publish an Annual Report on the implementation of the Strategic Partnership …
Parliament’s ability to effectively scrutinise any new agreements negotiated with the EU before they enter into force is a key test of the Government’s commitment to democratic legitimacy and accountability. It would be a concrete demonstration that lessons have been learned from the inadequate scrutiny processes for the Northern Ireland …
We ask the Government to commit to making time for a debate and vote in the House of Commons for each new formal treaty with the EU that is subject to the process in section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 prior to its ratification. Currently there …
It would have been preferable for the Government to publish its Dynamic Alignment Bill for implementation of the relevant new EU agreements in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny at an earlier opportunity so that the detail of this proposed mechanism could have been scrutinised before Parliament is asked to outsource part …
Given the impact, complexity and cross-cutting nature of the UK’s relationship with the EU, continued parliamentary scrutiny of the UK-EU relationship is vital. (Conclusion, Paragraph 221)
The EU is a key international partner for the UK. As such, the Foreign Affairs Committee should continue carrying out the scrutiny function for the foreign policy dimension of the new relationship, including the Security and Defence Partnership, as well as relevant elements of the new Strategic Partnership and the …
The closer relationship with the EU and the accelerating trend towards UK regulatory alignment with the EU does, however, raise important questions about the need for parliamentary scrutiny of EU matters within the House of Commons. In particular, under the envisaged agreements based on dynamic alignment the UK Parliament will, …
Even so, the UK has only limited scope to influence new EU laws with which it is or will be aligning. To ensure a degree of democratic legitimacy and accountability in relation to regulatory alignment with the European Union, it is necessary that the House of Commons should have appropriate …
It is not clear to us that expecting Departmental Select Committees to fulfil this task would be workable, and nor can they provide the House with a cross-cutting overview of how alignment with EU rules, and limitations on the UK’s regulatory autonomy, are developing across different areas of policy. We …
We agree with the House of Lords European Affairs Committee that Parliament must “play a full scrutiny role” when it comes to matters of alignment with the EU. Given the continued impact of the EU decisions on the UK and the much closer relationship being pursued by the Government, we …
We intend to consider the matter further, engaging with other interested parties within the House of Commons. It would be preferable for there to be broad agreement on the appropriate EU scrutiny mechanisms before any new treaties with the EU requiring dynamic alignment are brought into force. (Conclusion, Paragraph 227)
While the House of Commons approach to scrutiny of EU matters is ultimately a matter for the House itself, the establishment of a new Committee requires the Government’s support and its effectiveness will also depend on the flow of information from relevant Ministers and Departments. We therefore ask the Government …
We also ask the Government to explain if it intends to make sure that the new agreements with the EU based on dynamic alignment will include a mechanism, for example modelled on the Stormont Brake, that would enable the UK to reject having to implement a new piece of EU …
Similarly, we ask it to clarify if its recent assertion that “no new [EU] rules will apply in the UK without the UK first agreeing to this” means that the Government will have to consent to the UK aligning with relevant new EU laws under these future agreements on a …
| Date | Witnesses | |
|---|---|---|
| 8 Sep 2025 | Hermione Gough · Cabinet Office, Nick Heath · Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP · Cabinet Office, Stephen Doughty MP · Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office | View ↗ |
| 6 May 2025 | Charles Grant · Centre for European Reform, Professor Richard Whitman · University of Kent, Sophia Gaston · Kings College London | View ↗ |
| 29 Apr 2025 | Naomi Smith · Best for Britain, Professor Anand Menon · UK in a Changing Europe, Professor David Paton · Nottingham University Business School | View ↗ |
| Date | Direction | Title |
|---|---|---|
| 21 May 2026 | From cttee | Letter to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, relating to the Government’s Res… |
| 25 Jun 2025 | — | Correspondence from the Minister for the Cabinet Office relating to the UK-EU r… |
| 18 May 2025 | From cttee | Letter to the Prime Minister relating to UK-EU reset and upcoming summit, dated… |
| 15 May 2025 | — | Correspondence from the Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary relating to the… |