Select committee inquiry

Brexit and the implications for UK business: Aerospace inquiry

Closed

Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee · Opened 14 September 2017 · Closed 14 September 2017

8 recommendations · 8 conclusions
Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

What the inquiry looked at

“Overall, the Committee concluded that, in the case of aerospace, there is no trade-off between close harmonisation with the EU and access to markets beyond the EU. Instead, the two goals are complementary. It is in the interests both of the UK and the EU27 that both sides in the Brexit negotiation reach a firm agreement in the coming weeks on the arrangements for a transition or implementation period after March 2019, and also offer clarity on the future UK-EU relationship as soon as possible, so that firms can invest in confidence. This was the aerospace strand of the Committee's Brexit and the implications for UK business inquiry . Terms of reference: Brexit and the implications for UK business”

The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.

What it found

In the committee's words, from the summary of 6th Report - The impact of Brexit on the aerospace sector ↗

This Report is intended to inform public and parliamentary debate and to influence the Government’s objectives as it begins phase 2 of the negotiations on leaving the European Union.

The aerospace sector is one of the most productive and fastest-growing in the UK, accounts for some 7 per cent of manufacturing output and directly employs 114,000 people throughout the country. It is a highly trade-orientated and globalised industry, characterised by integrated cross-border supply chains, a high degree of concentration in large firms, and continent-spanning economies of scale. The success of UK aerospace is highly dependent on participation in European and global supply chains, which enable it to concentrate on key specialisms, including wings, fuselage and engines. UK aerospace is well-established and competitive, and it has continued to perform strongly since the vote to leave the EU. Nonetheless, it cannot afford to be complacent about global competition.

The sector benefits from the UK’s participation in the WTO Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft, as a result of which tariff barriers are not a significant concern after Brexit.

However, we find that the competitiveness of UK aerospace could be adversely affected by any additional delays and bureaucracy encountered at the UK-EU border, given the prevalence of cross-border just-in-time supply chains in the sector. The Government should seek to secure as near frictionless trade as possible between the UK and EU for the aerospace sector after Brexit, with the minimum amount of customs procedures.

The EU regulatory regime in aerospace is also highly integrated, and the UK is a full member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Membership of EASA also gives UK aerospace access to other global markets, notably through the Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements (BASAs) in place between EASA and its counterparts in the United States, Canada and Brazil. The globalised nature of aviation regulation means that there is little or nothing to be gained for the UK from regulatory divergence in the foreseeable future. The evidence we have received is unanimous in supporting the UK continuing its membership of EASA after Brexit. We therefore welcome the recent announcement by the Prime Minister that the Government will seek to do so.

At present, non-EU member states can be associate members of EASA, but they do not have voting rights on the management board and are subject to the indirect jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). While it would be desirable for the UK to maintain its voting rights, we find that even without them, the UK is likely to retain greater influence from within EASA than without. We also find that ECJ jurisdiction has not been an issue in practice for the aerospace sector, and welcome the Prime Minister’s recent statement that the UK will respect the remit of the ECJ in EU agencies it continues to participate in after Brexit.

A “no deal” exit from EASA would be highly costly and disruptive to aerospace and aviation in the UK, and have serious adverse impacts in the EU and globally. A managed transition from EASA could be protracted and costly, for no practical benefit in terms of regulatory sovereignty.

What the government said

The government responded on 15 May 2018.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.

The government welcomes the Committee's report and says it will explore with the EU the terms on which the UK could remain in the EASA system, with the precise form of the relationship "subject to negotiations".

  • On EASA, the government accepts that continued participation "would mean abiding by the rules of EASA and making an appropriate contribution", while Parliament "would remain sovereign" and could decide not to accept the rules, with consequences for EASA membership and market access.
  • On customs, it says it wants UK-EU trade "as frictionless as possible" and has considered two broad approaches, a highly streamlined customs arrangement and a new customs partnership. It does not state a choice between them.
  • On a no-deal exit from EASA, the response does not rule it out. It restates the ambition to explore continued EASA participation and says the government and the CAA "continue to make the necessary contingency plans to minimise disruption to industry".
  • On research, it seeks "continued association with Framework Programme 9", recognising this would involve "an appropriate financial contribution", and says it would like to discuss details with the European Commission.

How the inquiry ran

Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 14 September 2017 to 15 May 2018.

  1. Oral evidence 21 Nov 2017
  2. Report 19 Mar 2018
  3. Government response 15 May 2018
  4. Correspondence 2 letters

What it recommended 8 recommendations · 8 conclusions

1As a result of the WTO Agreement and the EU’s Inward Processing Regime, tariff barriers...
Recommended (the committee's words)
As a result of the WTO Agreement and the EU’s Inward Processing Regime, tariff barriers are not a significant concern for the UK aerospace sector after Brexit. The Government should integrate the relevant articles of the EU’s Inward Processing Regime into any future UK customs code in order to ensure that the sector can continue to import raw materials for use in aerospace without incurring duties.
2It is in the UK’s national interest for its aerospace sector to remain deeply integrated...
Recommended (the committee's words)
It is in the UK’s national interest for its aerospace sector to remain deeply integrated in European supply chains after Brexit, and there is little to be gained for this sector by not having closely-aligned customs. Any additional customs procedures resulting even in relatively short delays could detract from the UK’s industry’s ability to compete for work and investment in those supply chains. We recommend that the Government should seek to secure as near frictionless trade as possible between the UK and EU for the aerospace sector after Brexit, with the minimum amount of customs procedures.
3The most straightforward way for UK aerospace to avoid double certification after Brexit would be...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The most straightforward way for UK aerospace to avoid double certification after Brexit would be for the UK to remain a member state of EASA and its network of Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements.
4It may be in the UK’s national interest to reassess its degree of regulatory alignment...
Concluded (the committee's words)
It may be in the UK’s national interest to reassess its degree of regulatory alignment with the EU in the aerospace sector in future, in a predictable way that provides certainty for the industry. However, the evidence submitted to this inquiry decisively favours maintaining a high degree of alignment after Brexit.
5The evidence we have received from aerospace businesses, unions and academia is unanimous in support...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The evidence we have received from aerospace businesses, unions and academia is unanimous in support of the EU continuing its membership of EASA. Close global regulatory alignment in aerospace has resulted in benefits in terms of safety, the ease of global trade and efficiency, while it is unclear that there are any benefits from divergence at this time. Accordingly, the Committee notes and welcomes the Prime Minister’s statement in her Mansion House speech on 2nd March 2018 that the Government will explore with the EU the terms on which the UK could remain part of EASA, with the consequent appropriate financial contribution.
6In its negotiations with the EU, the Government should prioritise maintaining the UK’s EASA membership,...
Recommended (the committee's words)
In its negotiations with the EU, the Government should prioritise maintaining the UK’s EASA membership, while retaining as much influence within EASA as possible. At present, EASA’s regulations preclude the UK retaining its voting rights as a non-EU member state. The Government should seek a deal to retain those voting rights; however, even without voting rights, the UK is likely to retain greater influence on global aerospace regulation from within EASA than without.
7In practice, ECJ judgements have not been an issue for the aerospace sector.
Concluded (the committee's words)
In practice, ECJ judgements have not been an issue for the aerospace sector. In her Mansion House speech on 2nd March 2018, the Prime Minister acknowledged that “the decisions of the ECJ will continue to affect us” after Brexit and said that if “the 22 The impact of Brexit on the aerospace sector UK should continue to participate in an EU agency the UK would have to respect the remit of the ECJ in that regard.”84 This is preferable to the alternative of securing an escape from ECJ jurisdiction at the cost of influence in EASA. The Committee welcomes the Government’s pragmatic approach, which is especially suitable for the aerospace sector and regarding ECJ jurisdiction over EASA.
8The Government’s priority in terms of opportunities for aerospace to trade beyond the EU after...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Government’s priority in terms of opportunities for aerospace to trade beyond the EU after Brexit should be to secure the roll-over of EASA’s existing BASAs. This could be achieved by maintaining the UK’s membership of EASA in some form.
9The Government should also aim to secure UK participation in these and any other future...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should also aim to secure UK participation in these and any other future agreements.
10In the case of aerospace, the trade-off between regulatory harmonisation and as frictionless a customs...
Concluded (the committee's words)
In the case of aerospace, the trade-off between regulatory harmonisation and as frictionless a customs arrangement as possible, against the ability to strike trade deals globally, is decisively in favour of the former, which should be the Government’s priority. Indeed, EASA’s agreements with the likes of the United States and China suggests that the two aims are complementary, and that close harmonisation with the European and global aerospace regulatory regimes are likely to enhance, rather than diminish, the UK’s access to all global markets.
11It is clear that leaving the EU and EASA with no deal would be highly...
Recommended (the committee's words)
It is clear that leaving the EU and EASA with no deal would be highly costly and disruptive to the UK aerospace sector and aviation, as well as its EU counterparts. Given that no alternative arrangements are being developed, the Government should rule out this possibility.
12If the UK is to make a managed departure from EASA, it would require a...
Concluded (the committee's words)
If the UK is to make a managed departure from EASA, it would require a transition period in which special arrangements are made with the EASA, the US Federal Aviation Authority and other global regulators. The Civil Aviation Authority would need to undergo a major investment and recruitment programme if it is to take over the functions of EASA at some point in the future, and Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements with mutual recognition agreements would need to be negotiated with the EU, US and other major markets. Given the complexities involved, this transition may need to last beyond the two years that the Prime Minister has said is likely to be appropriate for the economy-wide implementation period. This disruptive and costly process is unlikely to result in any significant divergence in regulation. Continued membership of EASA is clearly preferable.
13The Government should prioritise ensuring that our key manufacturing sectors such as aerospace retain sufficient...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should prioritise ensuring that our key manufacturing sectors such as aerospace retain sufficient and timely access to essential skills. The Government 84 Prime Minister’s Office, ‘PM speech on our future economic partnership with the European Union’, 2 March 2018 The impact of Brexit on the aerospace sector 23 should seek to maintain the UK’s openness to skilled workers from the EU, as well as looking to which skills and qualifications could be attracted from beyond the EU.
14The Government should ensure that intra-company transfers and posted worker arrangements are flexible, rapid and...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should ensure that intra-company transfers and posted worker arrangements are flexible, rapid and require the minimum level of administration after Brexit.
15The Government should seek to maintain the UK’s membership of Horizon 2020, the Clean Sky...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should seek to maintain the UK’s membership of Horizon 2020, the Clean Sky Joint Understanding and other collaborative R&D programmes, and secure UK participation in future programmes. In doing so, it should recognise that the primary benefit of these programmes for the UK comes from the cross-border collaborative opportunities they offer, rather than the financial return, and form its negotiating priorities accordingly.
16It is in the interests of the UK and the EU27 that both sides in...
Concluded (the committee's words)
It is in the interests of the UK and the EU27 that both sides in the Brexit negotiation reach a firm agreement in the coming weeks on the arrangements for a transition or implementation period after March 2019, to avoid firms having to commence costly contingency plans. Looking beyond transition, the Government and its EU counterparts should also offer clarity on the future UK-EU relationship as soon as possible, so that firms on both sides can invest with confidence.

Evidence

Oral evidence sessions 1

Correspondence 2 letters