The Government agrees that a robust, risk-based regime is essential to maintaining standards and safeguarding biosecurity through the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM). In this report we have shared further context on how the risk-based regime implemented supports this. We understand the Committee’s position surrounding a request for published data and have endeavoured to engage with this meaningfully in this report. There is a need to balance transparency with commercial sensitivity and operational confidentiality. Placing this information into the public domain would not be without risk and therefore in places we cannot commit to a specific approach to publication. This report references Border Control Posts (BCPs), specifically Sevington Inland BCP. The Government would like to highlight that Sevington is currently the only government-run BCP in Great Britain and as such has a unique position compared to other, non-government run BCPs. We have made clear in our responses if we are discussing Sevington, or BCPs more broadly. Some of the recommendations in this report reference the current position of intentional non-compliance. There is a cross-over between the discussions in this response and the response to the ‘Biosecurity at the border: Britain’s illegal meat crisis’ response. Where this is the case, we have referred directly to this document. At the UK-EU Leaders Summit on 19 May 2025, the UK and EU announced their intention to negotiate a Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement, which will establish a common SPS area, and in turn significantly reduce barriers to trade in relation to movements of agri-food goods. The Government expects negotiations to start later in the autumn, once the EU member states have approved the EU Commission’s negotiating mandate. Once any agreement is implemented, the UK will play a key role, alongside EU Member States, in protecting the shared UK and EU SPS area from external biosecurity and public health risks, while also having the shared responsibility to address any risks that arise internally. As such we have carefully considered in each of our responses if action would be better taken before, after (or a combination thereof) the conclusion of any such negotiations.