17 Accepted in Part

Grant port health authorities stop, search, seize powers and funding for animal product border enforcement.

Recommendation
Port health authorities should be given stop, search and seize powers in relation to animal products and funding for enforcement presence at the border in relation to personal imports for the EU and rest of world. With the introduction of a UK-EU SPS zone and the reduction of border checks on POAO from the EU, there may be appropriately trained, experienced personnel who could be redeployed to personal import enforcement. (Recommendation, Paragraph 45)
Government Response Summary
The government partially accepts, stating that port health authorities already have search and seize powers but declining to extend Border Force detention powers. They will discuss DPHA's proposals and consider staff redeployment as part of initial work focused on the Short Straits.
Government Response
Accepted in Part
HM Government Accepted in Part
The Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations (2011) designate local and port health authorities as enforcement authorities in England for animal products. These Regulations already provide the enforcement authorities with search and seize powers. It is also an offence under these Regulations for a person to intentionally obstruct an enforcement officer, which includes failing to provide reasonable assistance or information and providing false or misleading information. The Government has no current plans to legislate to extend to local authorities and port health authorities, the detention powers afforded to Border Force under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. There would be considerable difficulties in amending the necessary legislation before an SPS Agreement is implemented and limited benefits to doing so before it is understood how the SPS negotiations could affect future enforcement needs. The current delivery model enables Border Force to work in partnership with other specialist enforcement authorities with complementary powers, for example local and port health authorities in relation specifically to illegal animal products. For example, searches undertaken targeting illegally imported animal products could instead uncover other illicit goods which local and port health authority officials are not well equipped to deal with. Port health authority functions are funded via fees on a full cost recovery basis. The provision of funding to DPHA to work with Border Force is a unique arrangement reflecting the specific challenges identified at the Short Straits. The Government does not intend to replicate this arrangement elsewhere as doing so would not be proportionate or sustainable under the current spending review. Defra is open to revisiting the idea of legislative change to stop, search and seize powers in the future. This could be pursued as part of a potential wider GB strategic approach referenced elsewhere in this document, which would follow our initial work focussed on the Short Straits. As part of this initial work focused on the Short Straits, we will actively discuss with DPHA, their proposals in this area. If any changes to these powers is considered, it will be done with close engagement with all port health authorities to understand how they would be impacted. As part of our work to prepare for the implementation of the SPS Agreement between the UK and the EU, Defra is considering the likely impact on PHA staffing owing to the reduction in controls on commercial imports. We agree that there may be some opportunities to consider re-deployment to support activity relating to illegal movements, although this would be limited by the constraints regarding funding as referenced above. As such, the Government partially accepts this recommendation.