Biosecurity minister defends inland border control post decision

Robbie Douglas-Miller, undersecretary of state for biosecurity, has issued a letter defending the government’s decision to use the inland Sevington facility as the border control post (BCP) for sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) goods entering the UK from the EU.

‘Robust’ options

Concerns were raised recently by the Dover District Council (DDC) over requirements that those bringing goods at risk of contamination into the UK must drive 22 miles inland before having them checked, which could result in shipments failing to appear at the BCP.

Douglas-Miller refuted the suggestion, arguing that “the risk of legitimate commercial loads not attending Sevington if it were designated is mitigated by robust, data-backed enforcement options”. He added:

“Where a BCP had concerns, for example due to non-attendance, there are existing robust provisions for the goods to be referred for inland controls by the local authority, enforceable through the data collected through those customs declarations and pre-notification.

“Meanwhile, vehicles suspected to be carrying illegal imports (e.g., those for which customs declarations and pre-notification have not been made or are suspected to have been made in bad faith) will continue to be stopped and dealt with by Border Force at the point of entry to the UK, not sent to a BCP.”

Bastion Point

A Dover Port Health Authority (DPHA) statement last month said that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had not provided sufficient detail to the port on the changes taking place regarding biosecurity and import controls on 30 April, when the next phase of the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM) is to be implemented.

It also requested that the government designate Bastion Point as a BCP, which it considered a “superior” option to Sevington.

The DPHA said it was “concerned” over the implementation of the Timed-Out Decision Contingency Feature (TODCOF) by Defra, saying that there are “serious biosecurity risks” but also that there are “implications for those consignments which are subsequently re-exported”.

Continued assessment

Douglas-Miller responded to the Dover authorities in his letter, saying that, if Sevington is designated as a BCP, operational procedures “would be put in place to manage operational capacity and Defra would continue to assess how the actual flows of imports were presenting or changing”.

“We also expect that the volume of physical checks for SPS goods undertaken at the Short Straits would reduce over time as trusted trader schemes, including checks being undertaken away from the physical border, are piloted and, if successful, fully implemented.”

Responses

Marco Forgione, director general of the Institute of Export & International Trade (IOE&IT), said confirmation of Sevington’s designation as a BCP “will bring the clarity businesses have been crying out for.”

However, he added that “this is another example of where communication could have been improved during this process.

“Businesses need clarity to plan and with just five days until the physical checks are due to start critical detail and information has been lacking.”

Politico reports in its Morning Trade newsletter, meanwhile, that the chair of industry body the SPS Working Group, Karin Goodburn, responded to say that there was “nothing in place to physically ensure attendance at Sevington nor to stop offloading of undesirable goods en route there or … its destination”. She added:

“Saying it is not legal to put uncleared foods on the market is not a deterrent to illegal activity.”

The SPS Working Group sent a letter to environment secretary Steve Barclay expressing its concerns about Sevington in January but had not received a response, Goodburn noted.