Recommendations and conclusions 85 shown
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 relationship in the UK and EU’s shared interest. (Conclusion, Paragraph 19)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 source of friction. We understand the need for the Government to implement the Windsor Framework in good faith, while also working closely with the Executive, Assembly and stakeholders in Northern Ireland to mitigate negative impacts on trade between there and the rest of the UK. We welcome the Government’s clear intent to address some of those impacts through overall improvements to the UK-EU relationship as part of the “reset”. (Conclusion, Paragraph 20)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 and Gibraltarian interests can be brought into effect without delay. (Conclusion, Paragraph 23)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 its ratification, during the scrutiny period provided for under Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. (Recommendation, Paragraph 24) 86 The Lancaster House summit and the new UK-EU Strategic Partnership
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 the summit. (Conclusion, Paragraph 32)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 than 12 years. The Government should provide regular updates to Parliament on the operation of the 12- year deal as overseen by the UK-EU Specialised Committee on Fisheries. (Recommendation, Paragraph 33)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 to the EU to address this matter comprehensively as part of the first UK-EU summit. Nonetheless, it is disappointing that, despite the positive momentum in the relationship, and the importance of a thriving metals sector to Europe’s shared defence industrial base, the European Commission has not proposed to exclude the UK from its proposals for the EU’s post-2026 steel tariff regime. We regret that the Lancaster House summit did not produce a long-term deal on steel tariffs. These developments point to the lack of adequate UK-EU political structures to address shared strategic challenges, in this case unfair Chinese industrial practices, collaboratively. (Conclusion, Paragraph 39)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 the Government to clarify if it sought a more durable arrangement with the EU on steel tariffs in the run-up to the May 2025 summit; provide an update on its engagement with the Commission more generally to avoid the imposition of tariffs on exports of British steel in other categories from summer 2026; 87 and set out to what extent the UK’s “red lines” for negotiations with the EU, particularly on customs matters and the Single Market, affect its ability to do so. (Recommendation, Paragraph 40)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 States to go further and faster in strengthening defence cooperation and coordination in coalition structures like the Joint Expeditionary Force and Coalition of the Willing. Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and US equivocation on NATO have made this more important than ever. (Conclusion, Paragraph 47)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 of immobilised Russian Sovereign assets to provide Ukraine with the financial support it needs. The UK is unwilling to seize the Russian Sovereign assets in its jurisdiction in the absence of a coordinated move with Europe. It will be European taxpayers that shoulder more of the burden, rather than utilising the significant assets of the aggressor that are at the UK and EU’s disposal to utilise in line with international law. Ultimately, for a just and lasting peace, Russia will need to pay reparations to account for the damage it has inflicted. It remains imperative that a way is found to deploy the Kremlin’s Sovereign assets in support of Ukraine. (Conclusion, Paragraph 48)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 industrial cooperation between the UK and EU, to support Europe’s collective military capabilities and resilience to hybrid threats, an indispensable, strategic imperative. (Conclusion, Paragraph 54)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 large and sophisticated defence industrial base. 88 This was highlighted explicitly as a priority in the new Security and Defence Partnership, and agreeing on greater UK involvement would send a clear sign of close UK-EU security cooperation in response to the Russian threat. (Conclusion, Paragraph 55)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 an area as crucial as defence collaboration, needed urgently to support Ukraine, has been derailed. This is a worrying sign that the UK and EU are far from ready to think strategically about their shared interests and act accordingly. (Conclusion, Paragraph 56)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 to reconsider its financial demands. Given the strategic priority of closer UK cooperation with the EU on defence industrial matters, it should be clear with the public as to the reasons why the negotiations failed, and raise the importance of avoiding the same mistakes occurring again at all levels with the EU and bilaterally with Member States. (Recommendation, Paragraph 57)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 to Security Action for Europe. (Recommendation, Paragraph 58)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 EU law. It should also improve cooperation in areas like irregular migration, although it is vague on specific outcomes in that area making scrutiny of progress difficult. (Conclusion, Paragraph 63)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 relationship, are missing. Conversely, some elements that are included in the Common Understanding, such as electricity trading and steel tariffs, were not articulated as UK priorities 89 before the summit at all. There is no sense of urgency within the Common Understanding to establish better ways of working together on other strategic challenges, notably economic security risks and coordination of the UK and EU’s respective policy response to them (such as the EU Industrial Accelerator Act). The overall impression is that the Government failed to present and secure a coherent roadmap for the future of the UK-EU relationship. (Conclusion, Paragraph 64)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 welfare standards, such as banning the live export of livestock for slaughter. However, the Government must remain conscious of the risk that the UK’s ability to set its own standards could be compromised by conditions set in trade deals with major partners. (Conclusion, Paragraph 71)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 72)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 Agreement and the legislation necessary to implement it in due course. (Recommendation, Paragraph 75)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 Systems linkage would also allow for mutual exemption from carbon border taxes that might otherwise hinder 90 UK-EU trade when they are fully in effect. However, we are concerned by the lack of communication about the timing and detail of any temporary arrangement to exempt UK exports from EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism in the meantime. (Conclusion, Paragraph 80)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 UK and EU Emissions Trading Systems are on-going. (Recommendation, Paragraph 81)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 or the expected timing of any agreement. Consequently, we do not know when these benefits are likely to materialise or what the extent of dynamic alignment in this area might be. (Conclusion, Paragraph 85)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 apply already in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, as the price for improved terms of trade with the EU. We consider the democratic legitimacy and parliamentary implications of this further in chapter 5 of this Report. (Conclusion, Paragraph 86)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 recent treaties with Switzerland, requiring the UK to interpret and apply EU law referred to in the Agreements in conformity with CJEU case law, outside the context of a UK- EU dispute. (Recommendation, Paragraph 88)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 and its European partners, the Committee agrees that it must be distinct from free movement of people, be visa-based and only permit stays of 91 limited duration. It should also be subject to adequate safeguards, including limits on overall numbers. We are clear that this must not be a return to free movement and any potential costs must be clearly set out and subject to a final vote in Parliament. We heard from witnesses to our inquiry that establishing such a scheme enjoys widespread support across the country and in the EU. (Conclusion, Paragraph 92)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 a shared roadmap for formalising mutual recognition of professional qualifications for priority sectors, such as architects. We also note the EU’s well-established concerns around the UK’s visa sponsorship scheme for employers. (Conclusion, Paragraph 97)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 98)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 99)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 UK. We support the Government’s efforts to reduce hurdles that touring artists face in the EU and share the ambition of securing more concrete commitments to that effect at the next summit. (Conclusion, Paragraph 102)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 the discussions foreseen by the Common Understanding relating to extradition under Part 3 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, given that by the Government’s own assessment that element of the Agreement is functioning effectively as it is. (Recommendation, Paragraph 106)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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, overall, it appears the EU achieved more concrete progress towards their most pressing demands—in particular with respect to fish—than the UK did. Most of the Government’s known objectives for the “reset” still require substantial further negotiations and the timeline for their implementation remains uncertain. The lack of a strategic approach to the summit is also clear from the narrow EU commitment on steel tariffs, which was revealed to be inadequate within six months of the summit. (Conclusion, Paragraph 109)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 and businesses with the EU to materialise. We urge our EU partners to recognise the significant flexibility the UK has already shown to make the new Strategic Partnership a success, and to reciprocate in kind with a due sense of urgency and purpose in the remaining strands of work. (Conclusion, Paragraph 110)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 the Government is key to continued confidence in the “reset”. Ministers should avoid inadvertently creating false expectations of imminent practical benefits, in particular while negotiations are on-going. (Conclusion, Paragraph 112)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 political agreement on a particular draft treaty has been reached and announced. (Recommendation, Paragraph 113)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 with the EU on carbon trading, electricity trading and the Youth Experience Scheme into force. We also ask it to indicate when we can expect to see concrete improvements in relation to performing artists, business mobility, mutual recognition of qualifications, and cooperation on irregular migration and border control. (Recommendation, Paragraph 114)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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, both with Parliament and with other stakeholders. Its approach to transparency of, and consultation on, the UK’s objectives for the sector-specific negotiations foreseen by the Common Understanding has been haphazard. More systematic outreach as the negotiations progress, or new negotiating strands are added, will also aid in the implementation of new arrangements with the EU in due course, as those affected will be prepared for them. By extension, this should help the benefits Government expects to accrue from these new agreements to materialise more rapidly. (Conclusion, Paragraph 119)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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. This means it would publish, at a minimum, “Strategic Approaches” for the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, emissions trading systems linkage, electricity trading and youth mobility negotiations with the EU; conduct a Call for Evidence on each of these; as well as commit to publishing updates after each formal negotiating round with the EU. This would improve transparency of the negotiations, without providing a running commentary, and should enable key stakeholders to help inform the UK negotiating position in the current phase of the talks, and spot potential problems before the agreements are finalised. (Recommendation, Paragraph 120) 94
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 Select Committees and other interested parties; and so that they can prepare fully for the requirements that implementation of the envisaged agreements with the EU will place on them and their stakeholders. Once agreed it should be set out clearly how they plan to work together across departments and reviewed regularly to ensure that genuine cross-department collaboration and input occurs. (Recommendation, Paragraph 124)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 risks undermining confidence in the UK that the delicate balance of interests reflected in the Common Understanding is being respected and remains the basis for further negotiations in good faith. (Conclusion, Paragraph 128)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 EU, it is essential that Ministers conduct these negotiations transparently. (Conclusion, Paragraph 129)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 so, what limits, conditions and safeguards it will seek to ensure value for money for the UK taxpayer. Any financial contribution of this kind ought to be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. (Recommendation, Paragraph 130) 95 Developing the UK-EU Strategic Partnership further
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 for improvement to the UK-EU economic relationship that were not agreed at the Lancaster House summit, in particular on mutual recognition of conformity assessments, accession to the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention and removing difficulties faced by UK touring artists. We hope to see more progress on these at the next UK-EU summit later this year. (Conclusion, Paragraph 135)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 order and a more transactional ally in the US. While the Government has told us that it has undertaken a “realistic, hard-headed assessment of international politics and our national interest”, we do not believe this extremely unstable geopolitical context is adequately reflected in the outcome of the Lancaster House summit. (Conclusion, Paragraph 148)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 the EU, we do not have the structures needed to coordinate policies of strategic significance and to enhance the UK and EU’s collective agency in the face of these challenges. This needs to be fixed, urgently. (Conclusion, Paragraph 149)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 without delay, whenever possible at Ministerial level. They should be used as a forum to identify opportunities for joint action on strategic priorities, not only as a reactive mechanism for moments of crisis. In pursuing its interests since the “reset” was initiated, the EU has been a tough negotiator. The UK must be prepared to respond in kind, drawing on its strengths to identify and pursue its strategic political and economic interests with a clearer sense of purpose. (Recommendation, Paragraph 150) 96
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 Government intends to pursue further, especially following the failure of the negotiations on UK involvement in the EU Security Action for Europe programme. While the EU is not a traditional military actor, we have heard how it has some strengths that are complementary to NATO when it comes to security and resilience, in particular its financial and regulatory levers. The UK should seek to engage with these, in particular through the “high level meetings” foreseen by the UK-EU Joint Statement of 19 May 2025. (Conclusion, Paragraph 151)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 months by different Ministers about both the “damage” done by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and their ambitions for the future of the economic relationship with the EU through further alignment lack any detail. If the Government is considering making proposals to dynamically align with the EU in further areas or form a new customs partnership with the EU as longer-term objective, it should be clear about this and there must be the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny of such proposals in Parliament. (Conclusion, Paragraph 161)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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, as Ministerial statements suggest, that it is of the view that the current set of negotiating priorities with the EU are not sufficient to address them; and, if this is so, set out what further proposals it intends to make to improve trade relations with the EU and commit to time given in Parliament for scrutiny of these issues. (Recommendation, Paragraph 162) 97
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 so. (Recommendation, Paragraph 163)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 the sectors it has prioritised in that regard, and how it intends to take that forward with the EU in the run-up to the next UK-EU summit. The Government should also use existing avenues for consultation to give the sectors affected the opportunity to provide views on the Government’s intentions, before any further formal negotiations based around alignment with EU rules are initiated. (Recommendation, Paragraph 164)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 165)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 as a result of the Windsor Framework. (Conclusion, Paragraph 179)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 and pharmaceuticals, as well as measures to reduce the impact of VAT and customs formalities for trade with the EU; • UK accession to the Lugano Convention to improve cross-border recognition of commercial judgements; • Steps to improve short-term mobility between the UK and EU for services providers and closer cooperation on financial services matters. (Recommendation, Paragraph 180)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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, we believe the latter can still play a valuable role as a technical process to help the UK and EU identify how the Agreement is being implemented in practice and where there is untapped potential within its existing provisions to improve trade and cooperation. In that way, the TCA review and the annual summits of the Strategic Partnership are complementary to one another. (Conclusion, Paragraph 183)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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; whether it was conducted unilaterally or jointly with the EU, and what stakeholder feedback was sought as part of it; to what extent the evaluation comprehensively mapped the implementation of the Agreement, particularly to identify underused or unimplemented provisions; and, in detail, what the outcome of the evaluation was. We also ask it to make clear whether the UK and EU now consider the Review mandated by Article 776 of the TCA to be completed, or, if not, what further work is planned and on what timescale. (Recommendation, Paragraph 184)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 would not distort the EU market but have a significant beneficial economic impact on the BOTs. (Conclusion, Paragraph 187)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 the “reset”, what barriers have prevented progress on this to date, and what its ambitions on this matter are for the next UK-EU summit later this year. (Recommendation, Paragraph 188)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 the UK’s relationship with the EU; and the significant challenges in that relationship that remain which the Lancaster House summit did not address. A White Paper could serve in particular to elucidate the Government’s apparent shift in recent months towards considering a closer economic, and therefore political, relationship with the EU. (Conclusion, Paragraph 197) 99
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 vision for the relationship; the strategic challenges that the Partnership must equip the UK and EU to address; and the specific proposals the Government has made, or is intending to make, to achieve this, including around further regulatory alignment. (Recommendation, Paragraph 198)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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, Paragraph 199) Parliamentary scrutiny of EU matters
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 the flow of information. (Conclusion, Paragraph 202)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 ahead of each subsequent UK-EU summit and enable a debate on this document in the House of Commons. This should cover progress made in the previous year on commitments made in the Common Understanding, as well as the implementation of new mechanisms for cooperation established under the Security and Defence Partnership. (Recommendation, Paragraph 203)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 Protocol and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which had significant flaws that could have been ‘caught’ had Parliament been given the tools and time for thorough scrutiny. Parliamentary scrutiny should not be limited to any domestic legislation that may be required to give all or parts of any new agreements with the EU legal effect in the UK. (Conclusion, Paragraph 211) 100
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 are at least four such treaties expected. When doing so, the Government should commit to extend the scrutiny period Parliament has to consider these new Agreements prior to ratification, as it has already done for Free Trade Agreements. (Recommendation, Paragraph 212)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 of its legislative authority to the EU. To ensure the fullest possible scrutiny despite these constraints, we ask the Government to confirm that Parliament will not be asked to consider the substance of the Bill unless and until the finalised legal texts of the agreements with the EU that it will implement have been published. (Recommendation, Paragraph 213)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 annual summit process, as part of our broader programme of work and our scrutiny of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. This would of course not preclude other Committees from considering EU- related matters as they see fit. (Conclusion, Paragraph 222)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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, in effect, be asked to outsource more of its legislative autonomy to another jurisdiction while such treaties are in place (on top of the requirement to align with EU rules already required by the Windsor Framework for Northern Ireland). As long as alignment is taking place, EU laws will inevitably constrain UK Government policy and Parliament’s legislative functions, as well as having potentially significant impacts on businesses and citizens. (Conclusion, Paragraph 223) 101
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 mechanisms in place to scrutinise EU laws of relevance to the UK. These should also enable the House to act on any concerns with the relevant Government Department and coordinate input, as required, into the UK’s future formal “decision-shaping” arrangements with the European Commission on draft EU laws where alignment takes place pursuant to a binding agreement. (Conclusion, Paragraph 224)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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 do not consider that the scrutiny mechanisms that exist in the House of Lords, valuable as they are, can substitute for scrutiny of EU matters, and Ministers’ decisions on alignment, by the democratically elected House of Commons. It is also clear that any scrutiny mechanism for EU matters, however operationalised, will require the Government’s cooperation to be effective. (Conclusion, Paragraph 225)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 believe that the House of Commons should establish a dedicated new Committee on EU affairs, to consider and scrutinise matters relating to the UK’s closer new relationship with the European Union in the round, including matters pertaining to regulatory alignment. (Conclusion, Paragraph 226)
Conclusion · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Concluded (the committee's words)
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)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 to make clear if it supports the establishment of a Committee for scrutiny of EU Affairs in the House of Commons. (Recommendation, Paragraph 228) 102
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 legislation that would otherwise be subject to the requirement to align; and what role it envisages for Parliament, and the House of Commons in particular, in the triggering of such a mechanism. (Recommendation, Paragraph 229)
Recommendation · 3rd Report – From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK-EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future · Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Recommended (the committee's words)
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 case-by-case basis; or whether ‘agreeing’ in this context was intended as a reference to the UK ratifying treaties with the EU requiring it to align automatically with all its rules on an on-going basis unless an exemption applies. (Recommendation, Paragraph 230) 103