The Ashford Port Health service has welcomed efforts to reduce trade friction with the EU but stressed that removing checks does not eliminate the risks they are designed to manage. The effectiveness of any new agreement will be judged on its ability to deliver benefits while maintaining robust protection for public health, animal and plant health, and the UK’s food supply.
This issue is of national significance, with Defra’s guidance indicating the agreement extends beyond border paperwork to encompass food law, official controls, animal and plant health, food standards, pesticides, and biocides. The full implications require understanding across the entire system.
Key questions for the government include where responsibility for food safety assurance will lie, who will bear the costs, how problems will be detected, and what procedures will be in place when issues arise. If protection and assurance shift away from the border, clear responsibilities, effective surveillance, enforcement, and sufficient funding and expertise are essential for the new arrangements to safeguard public health. Port Health Authorities' practical experience should inform these developments.
The government must also prove that projected savings are net savings, considering the full cost of the new system and avoiding the transfer of costs to other public services or businesses. It is important to clarify that sanitary and phytosanitary controls are only one aspect of border management; customs and other requirements will remain.
While fewer certificates may benefit businesses, a reduction in safeguards is unacceptable. The public and businesses need confidence that simpler trading arrangements will be supported by a strong, well-funded system of protection.
