(a)

as a Port Health Authority, Plymouth was exposed to additional costs that would not be experienced by other local authorities; Plymouth Port Health Authority had received a small sum of funding to assist with the preparations for Brexit from the Food Standards Agency; the Council had not received any additional port funding from central government as Plymouth had not been acknowledged as a Strategic Port;

(b)

Government departments had been working to design customs and other control arrangements at the UK border to ensure goods could continue to flow into the country without any delays due to additional controls and checks; the UK Government did not have control over the checks which European Union member states imposed at the EU boarder; the European Commission had indicated that it was likely to impose full third country controls on people and goods entering the EU from the UK:

(c)

Plymouth was not a Border Inspection Post (BIP); if the risk assessment for high risk food and animal feed changed and the UK Government decided to start imposing import controls on high risk EU food, the meat, fish and diary produce that was currently imported through Plymouth, would need to be diverted to a Border Inspection Post;

(d)

Plymouth would be a suitable strategic location for a Border Inspection Post; designation as a (BIP) would ensure that the current freight would continue to be imported, if the UK decided to impose import controls; Port operators would be responsible for building BIP facilities;

the Council was currently assisting Associated British Ports (ABP) (the port operator at Millbay) with information about minimum requirements for a BIP facility; based on current information it was difficult to justify a business case for investment into the building of a BIP facility as there was currently no need for one;

(e)

both ABP and Brittany Ferries had indicated that they would definitely wish to secure the current high risk freight as they would not wish to lose this traffic to other ports; if Plymouth was designated as a BIP there was the potential to be able to attract new business; however, the current estimate to build a suitable facility was well in excess for £1.5m;

(f)

EU fishing products arriving in Plymouth via the ferries would require the Council to issue Catch Certificates in accordance with Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing legislation (IUU); this was a new and onerous duty; it was estimated that between 80 and 200 vehicles per year would arrive in Plymouth which would require certificates; this would be chargeable to the importer, at full cost recovery but there was a significant impact on capacity for the Council’s Food Safety team;

(g)

Plymouth was still pursuing the Government in order to secure status as a strategic port; it was unclear as to which department / personnel had been involved with this assessment; Plymouth was the only operational roll on roll off ferry terminal in the South West region and as such it was very important to the agrifood and fisheries businesses which proliferated across the South West, Brittany and Spain;

(h)

Plymouth had a clear ambition to become a world class border and was determined to play a part in the Boarder Delivery Group Future Boarders programme; Plymouth City Council was in discussions with stakeholders to create a sub-regional fishery products export hub coverage for Devon and Cornwall.

(i)

concerns regarding the methodology used when the assessment had been undertaken relating to the designation of Plymouth as a Boarder Inspection Post and the lack of consultation that had occurred with Associated British Ports and Brittany Ferries in relation to this process;

(j)

sought clarification relating to the Catch Certificates and whether preparations had been undertaken to ensure that the fleet would be able to continue to fish;

(k)

concern regarding the inadequate Government funding that Plymouth had received for the work undertaken by the Council in its preparations for Brexit;

(l)

whether the Council had received support and assistance from the city’s three MPs regarding the impact of Brexit on the Plymouth Health Authority Port;

(m)

the measures that had been put in place to address the potential for additional freight lorries to travel to Plymouth due to lack of capacity at other ports, ie a heavy goods waiting area;

(n)

whether there was an expectation that Brittany Ferries would re-direct ferries from other ports such as Portsmouth to Plymouth due to high demand;

(o)

whether there was any support that the Council could provide in order to assist with the improvements that were required at the port;

(p)

the measures being undertaken to review the strategic port risk assessment carried out by central government which had concluded that Brexit would have a low impact on Plymouth.

(1)

acknowledge the impact that Brexit would have on the Council’s Public Protection Service of Plymouth;

(2)

lobby for support for Plymouth as a strategic port and the need for an updated risk assessment;

(3)

support an urgent business case to describe Plymouth as a key port in the UK Government’s Future Boarders programme, with a world class border, including a Border Control Post and the full range of port facilities for import and export;

(4)

seek a formal response from the city’s three MPs regarding the support and assistance they were providing to the City Council with Brexit-related issues, in particular the Plymouth Port Health Authority;

(5)

arrange meetings that could be utilised to discuss the current situation relating to whether a deal had been agreed and the implications, whether an extension had been sought, or whether the UK would be leaving the EU on 31 October 2019, without a deal.