The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has written to the Baroness Hayman, the Defra Minister for biosecurity and borders, to request clarity on the department’s response to Germany’s foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.
During a hard-hitting EFRA evidence session last week, Lucy Manzano, Dover Port Health Authority’s (DPHA’s) head of port health and public protection, said she was aware that German products continued to enter the UK unchecked ‘for at least six days’ after Defra introduced a ban on susceptible products from Germany. This is because they were ‘auto cleared’ via the ‘timed-out decision contingency feature’ (TODCOF) system introduced under the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM).
Ms Manzano also criticised the lack of communication and clear guidance from Defra to those who were meant to be implementing the policy on the ground.
Helen Buckingham, an Environmental Health Practitioner and regulatory consultant, told the committee that, after the import regulations were changed on January 11, the government’s IPAFFS import notification system took another seven days to adjust.
“In that time, things got through and that is fairly remarkable,” she said. “I was getting calls from inland authorities saying they had just got some German whey product turning up and were wondering what to do.”
In its letter to Baroness Hayman, the Committee said the comments raised questions about Defra’s use of the auto-clearance process for imports.
It asks Defra to set out when the decision was made to ban the import of relevant goods from Germany, when border control posts were informed and when IPAFFS (Import of Products, Animals, Food and Feed System) was successfully updated and operating as intended.
Committee members ask the Department to confirm the quantity of prohibited goods that were able to enter the country in the time between controls being approved and IPAFFS being updated.
The letter also asks the Department to inform them of what steps have been taken to track and remove prohibited products and to explain what assessment Defra has made of the cause of the delay to controls being properly implemented.
DPHA funding
The committee’s letter also raises the issue of funding for ASF (African swine fever) checks delivered by DPHA. MPs highlight that the current level of funding only allows the DPHA to provide 20% of operational coverage to deliver checks for illegal meat entering the country.
Crucially, Ms Manzano told the committee last week that funding is due to cease at the end of March. “There are significant gaps in the controls that are taking place. If our funding is not secured, certainly within the next seven weeks, coming into year-end, these checks will stop because the local authorities are not in a position to fund them,” she said.
In the letter, the committee urges the Government to maintain that funding to ensure GB biosecurity. EFRA highlights how DPHA’s work is ‘integral’ to seizures of Products of Animal Origin (POAO) and, without it, seizures would plummet, ‘allowing even more prohibited meat to flow into the country’.
EFRA chair Alistair Carmichael said: “I emphasise that the Government must allocate appropriate funding to DPHA to continue to deliver this work, which is of critical national importance.”
The committee also points to Defra estimates that an ASF could cost the UK up to £100m and could ‘devastate’ the rural economy.
“This should be at the forefront of ministers’ minds when considering DPA DPHS proposal as well as the public health and food hygiene risks associated with meat smuggling,” Mr Carmichael added.
Defra response
Commenting after last week’s EFRA hearing, Defra said it was ‘entirely incorrect’ to state that it took a week to stop meat imports from Germany following the outbreak.
A Defra spokesperson said: “The government will do whatever it takes to protect our nation’s farmers from the risk posed by foot and mouth disease. That is why restrictions were immediately brought in on animal products from Germany to prevent an outbreak.
“We ensured that auto-clearance facilities were superseded by robust biosecurity controls which were implemented at pace following confirmation of the outbreak.”