Agenda item

(A report by James Baty, Economic Research, in connection with an overview of the recent analysis into exporting data, released by HM Revenue & Customs)

Consideration was given to a report which provided members with an overview of the recent analysis into exporting data, released by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) recently.

It was noted that despite the importance of exporting to the economy, it had proved difficult to measure locally in the past.  However, in 2017 HMRC released new data on exporting at English Growth Hub level, a geography which typically aligned with Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) boundaries.  This data provided some new local insight into values, destinations and make up of exports.

It was noted that the total value of goods and services exported originating from Greater Lincolnshire businesses in 2015 was £2.9bn.  This equated to £6,797 per job on average, which was below the UK average of £9,403 but was above other areas of the UK which had a similar economic make up to Lincolnshire.

Members were provided with an opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was clarified that D2N2 referred to Derbyshire, Derby, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire.

·         It was queried why the values of exports from the D2N2 area was greater, and whether it was the infrastructure or density of population that was a factor in this.

·         In terms of machinery that was exported, it was queried how many of the components or materials used in the manufacturing process would have been imported, and how much was being made from 'our own' resources.  It was acknowledged that this was an important factor to consider, but the data did not currently provide this information.

·         It was noted that exports were less than imports both locally and nationally.

·         It was queried whether there was any information on 'invisible' exports such as services and knowledge, and members were advised that this was measured nationally, but not locally.

·         It was commented that people exporting small goods could use the post office, those that exported large items would know the routes to export, but it was those people in the middle who were struggling.  There was a need to get the message across about methods of exporting.

·         It was commented that a lot of the information from HMRC did not relate to what the circumstances were in Lincolnshire, and it was queried whether this information could be provided to the members.

·         It was suggested whether there could be a directory of services for exporting, as if a business had not handled exports before it would be a big task to undertake.

·         Members were advised that the Business Lincolnshire website was also a source of information, and there was a possibility of peer to peer exercises that could be set up.  There was a need to look at how a support network could be operated.

·         It was suggested that a briefing paper be put together and circulated to the committee to provide further information regarding the Greater Lincolnshire LEP outputs data in the report.

RESOLVED

1.    That the comments made be noted.

2.    That a briefing paper be prepared and circulated to the Committee in relation to further information requested on the Greater Lincolnshire LWP outputs.