The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (Efra) has called for evidence to examine biosecurity measures for animal imports to the UK.
The call for evidence is the first of the Committee’s new inquiry on animal and plant health.
Efra said that through its focus on biosecurity at the border, the Committee will examine the stringency of biosecurity controls as well as their impact on international trade following the introduction of new animal and plant health checks on goods from the EU last year.
The inquiry comes amid continued concerns that large quantities of illegal meat are being brought into the UK. In October, the BBC reported that the amount of illegal meat seized by Border Force officials alone doubled from almost 35,000kg in 2022/23 to more than 70,000kg in 2023/24.
During 2024, up to 14th August, Dover Port seized 39,254.8kg of illegal products of animal origin (POAO), according to a Freedom of Information request.
The Committee highlighted that illegal meat imports carry the risk of diseases including African swine fever, which pose a serious threat to the UK agricultural sector.
DPHA says import controls are “not sufficient”
Lucy Manzano, head of the Dover Port Health Authority (DPHA), told MPs on the Committee: “Defra have continually stated that there are robust controls in place. There are not. They don’t exist.”
In its written evidence to Efra, DPHA stated: “The adequacy of personal import controls and their enforcement is not sufficient.”
It said that the controls had been “disrupted and impinged” by the implementation of the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM), resulting in illegal meat presentations increasing by an order of magnitude.
“Defra have continually stated that there are robust controls in place. There are not. They don’t exist.”
Lucy Manzano, DPHA
DPHA also said that current funding arrangements were not sufficient for the scale of illegal meat seizures it was seeing. It stated: “The seizures we are making are just the tip of the iceberg and taken from less than just 0.2% of the vehicles arriving.”
The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) said: “We welcome efforts to pursue a better relationship with the EU with the aim of reducing trade costs and friction at a time of global instability. Securing an ambitious SPS agreement with the EU is one of the ways that would help to reduce friction at the border, but not the only one.
“In the short term, it is vital the Government continues to press for improved trade facilitation, and to address issues where they exist relating to the implementation of the BTOM. Including the continued ban on high quality British products to the EU such as seed potatoes and lack of access opportunities for UK livestock breeding stock to enter the EU market due to the absence of a Border Control Post on the north European coast.”
In their inquiry, MPs will investigate the efficacy of biosecurity measures and what immediate improvements can be made to personal and commercial import controls in advance of, or in the absence of, a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) or veterinary agreement with the EU.
Over the span of the Committee’s broader inquiry on animal and plant health, MPs will scrutinise the resourcing and work of the Animal and Plant Health Agency and are also expected to examine a range of topics including animal welfare, a potential SPS agreement with the EU and skills and workforce planning in relevant professions, such as the veterinary sector.
Other topics likely to be examined include threats to UK forestry and the associated risk of ecosystem collapse, and the impact of pests, diseases and biosecurity measures on farmers and the food supply chain.
Chair of the Efra Committee, Alistair Carmichael MP, said: “The biosecurity measures we have in this country are of the utmost importance. Any weak points expose the UK to serious risks, such as African swine fever, which would have catastrophic consequences for the agriculture sector.
“In this inquiry, we are setting out to assess the adequacy of our biosecurity measures and will consider what could be done to strengthen biosecurity at the border.
“We want to hear from the wide range of stakeholders with an interest in biosecurity, from the veterinary sector to the agricultural, forestry and horticultural sectors, to workers and businesses in the food and drink supply chain, and enforcement bodies for welfare, standards and hygiene, such as local authorities and port health authorities.”
Written evidence can be submitted here.
