Agenda item

6.1

Chris Lowry (Policy and Improvement Officer) gave a presentation, providing an update on Brexit, together with the implications for Sheffield.  Also in attendance for this item were Laurie Brennan (Policy and Improvement Manager) and Richard Wright (Executive Director) and Tom Sutton (Membership Manager), Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

6.2

Chris Lowry referred to the current position with regard to the negotiations, reporting on the three parallel strands – Separate, Transition and Next Steps, the key points arising from the Prime Minister, Theresa May’s speech at Mansion House, the key events with regard to the countdown to Brexit, and reported on the implications as to what the transition period meant for the UK.  Mr Lowry then referred to the likely impacts of Brexit, both nationally, and on the implications for Sheffield, referring to statistics regarding local growth, EU and non-EU exports as at 2015, together with the results of surveys of Council Leaders/Chief Executives in terms of the likely impacts on their local authority areas.  He referred to the freedom of movement with regard to migration to and from the UK, both 12 months after the Brexit vote and 12 months before the Brexit vote, and concluded by referring to a number of significant issues which still needed addressing during upcoming negotiations, including trade, immigration and customs.

6.3

Richard Wright stated that there were still a number of questions to be resolved with regard to Brexit, but also referred specifically to the recent announcement from the USA, regarding the proposal to impose steep tariffs on imports of steel. Both of these could potentially have an adverse effect on the City’s manufacturing industry, but especially on those companies producing engineering products. Tariffs and customs restrictions reduced the competitiveness of business, and could create cash flow problems for a number of local companies.  A potential way round the customs delays was a method of clearing products pre-shipment (known as AES), which needs businesses to get approved. This was impractical for small and medium sized businesses (SMEs), which form the majority of the City’s businesses, but the Chamber of Commerce and Industry was already taking steps to get the approval so it could do it for them, thereby facilitating as seamless a transition as possible.

6.4

Tom Sutton referred specifically to those problems which needed addressing on a micro level, including potential employment problems  of labour shortages facing the NHS and some other sectors.

6.5

Members of the Committee raised questions, and the following responses were provided:-

·             There was no current data in terms of how many families were likely to be affected by changes to immigration status, following Brexit, but this information could be found and circulated to Members.

·             Availability of information would be explored in regard to any significant impact on people’s spending habits.

·             It was accepted that there could be issues, particularly regarding realistic timescales, in terms of the UK having to renegotiate trade deals/customs arrangements with the 101 countries it currently had such deals with via the EU.

·             It was still not clear at this stage what the short and long-term impacts would be on the UK, following Brexit.  Most of the current forecasts being reported were based on economic modelling, and it was expected that details regarding likely impacts would be confirmed as the process developed. The majority had produced negative forecasts, but there had been a few that have projected a positive economic impact.

·             The UK’s ability to provide an effective level of skills was key to minimising any adverse impacts on, or assisting, businesses going forward after Brexit.  It had been acknowledged that there was a need to build on Sheffield’s existing strengths in the supply chain, both nationally and internationally.  The UK had got to find better ways of creating wealth, and distributing it evenly.

·             There had been a detrimental effect on social care, and a significant reduction in the number of EU nationals working, and applying to work in, social care. This would create a very real demand pressure when local authorities were already facing significant and growing demand pressures in both adult and children’s social care. 

·             There was a high possibility that Brexit could have an adverse effect on social cohesion.

6.6

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)      notes the information now reported as part of the presentation, and the responses to the questions raised;

(b)     requests that the information requested, relating to how many families were likely to be affected by immigration status, be forwarded to Members; and

(c)      thanks Chris Lowry, Laurie Brennan, Richard Wright and Tom Sutton for attending the meeting and responding to the questions raised.