Resetting the UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important report, not least because we are the only committee with the bespoke role of looking at the relationships between the United Kingdom and the EU. There was mainly consensus in this report, notwithstanding appendix 9, as my noble friend Lord Frost said, which contains the alternative summary. The consensus was around the Government’s failure to outline a clear and comprehensive negotiating mandate, perhaps by way of a White Paper, which obviously undermined the ability of the committee and the House more widely to exercise proper scrutiny and oversight.

There was a reason for having an alternative summary, and it was because in essence some of us believed that the Government’s policy, even measured by their own measures, was incoherent, insubstantial and deliberately obfuscatory. Kind words butter no parsnips. The Government failed to leverage strong negotiating hands in, say, defence, security and fishing, despite the UK being number two in the world for soft power and being pre-eminent in defence, for instance. They unilaterally surrendered those advantages with very little to show for it, such as on the fisheries deal. I have to say, in all fairness and balance, that I think the EU made a strategic miscalculation over SAFE, and hopefully those negotiations will be more fruitful.

In areas such as mutual recognition of professional qualifications and touring artists, they have made little or no progress despite being in the manifesto. They have capitulated on key areas to support the EU strategic objectives in policy areas absent from the manifesto, such as Erasmus+, the 12-year fisheries deal and the electricity trading scheme. Most egregious is a commitment to improving the SPS regime, which is of course laudable in reducing friction at the border, that has morphed into a full-blown commitment to dynamic alignment which is likely to cost, according to the Growth Commission in its report published this week, £15 billion to the economy. Currently, it is a system and regime that costs the EU itself €39 billion a year. The Government have not themselves yet produced any information on legislation, costings, the likely commitment of cohesion funds or an impact assessment. In a number of areas, the Government’s proposals are opaque, including, for instance, those on economic impact and carve-outs. A good example is gene editing, which the National Farmers’ Union has pressed for over the last few months. We are no nearer to understanding the global impact on UK sovereignty, the nebulous concept of “decision-shaping”, the status of governance in respect of dispute resolution and the likely role of the European Court of Justice.

Finally, can the Minister say what legal form the new agreements will take? What commitment will the Government make to parliamentary sovereignty and oversight of the new arrangements? What carve-outs will be sought in the new dynamic alignment regime? What are the likely costs to be borne in order to participate in SAFE and the new partial membership of the single market? What stance will the Government take on the new trade and co-operation review due this year?

Our committee will be pressing the Government on all these issues and will hold them to their commitment to their red lines, not least in our forthcoming inquiry into dynamic alignment. They will not have a free pass to subvert Brexit and take us back into the European Union by subterfuge and sleight of hand.