Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 3 April 2024

Introduction 

The government is committed to protecting the UK’s environment, farming industry and citizens from a range of threats through the implementation of the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM), published in August 2023. Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) import controls in the BTOM are a critical element of all effective biosecurity and public health systems. They protect public health, plant health and animal health and welfare. Controls provide assurance, they allow the interception of non-compliant consignments, and they enable the tracing of goods if an incident arises. Controls ensure that consumers can safely access the food and products they want, and they underpin our exports to our global trading partners. 

Introduction of robust controls on EU imports will result in new costs for importers in order to fund the operation of Border Control Post (BCP) facilities which are vital to ensure physical inspections on SPS imports can be undertaken safely and securely. HM Government is responsible for setting charges to recover operating costs for government-run BCP facilities serving the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel. Operating costs include all expenses required to run the facility, for example, utilities, maintenance, business rates, waste management, the operator contract. It does not include the capital costs of building the facility. Commercial ports will separately determine charges to recover operating costs for their own BCP facilities. Inspection fees are a separate charge which will be administered by Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), Port Health Authorities (PHAs) and Local Authorities. 

On 12 June 2023, the government published a consultation inviting views on proposed charges to recover operating costs for planned government-run BCP facilities serving the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel. The consultation included 24 questions. Questions sought feedback on charging levels, charging administration and impact to businesses of all sizes, in order to determine a fair and proportionate approach to administering the common user charge. This document sets out the government response to that consultation. 

The proposal was to administer a common user charge on imports eligible for BCP checks entering the Great Britain through Port of Dover and Eurotunnel, from April 2024. The charge would apply to all eligible SPS imports, whether or not they are selected for an inspection at a government-run BCP. The indicative common user charge rate for medium and high-risk products of animal origin (POAO) and plants and plant products (P and PP) was estimated to be in the region of £20 to £43, with a reduced rate of £10 for low-risk POAO imports. Final rates were to be determined following evaluation of the consultation responses. 

All responses to the consultation have been carefully considered. See the rates section for information on the final rates.

Overview of consultation responses 

The consultation was open for 4 weeks from 12 June 2023 to 9 July 2023 and was published on GOV.UK. Respondents were invited to use Citizen Space to complete their responses, and could also submit responses or any additional information by e-mail. Some e-mail responses were received outside the consultation window and have been included in response statistics.  

Stakeholders were informed of the consultation directly and it was widely publicised through a range of government stakeholder groups and bulletins, including the Defra Business Readiness Forum, Plant Health Newsletter, and the Cabinet Office bulletin.  

Following the launch of the consultation, Defra led 10 engagement meetings from 22 June 2023 to 7 July 2023 with UK trade associations, logistics businesses and commercial ports, and focused meetings with the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel. These meetings offered stakeholders the opportunity to share and expand on their views to help government better understand the potential impacts of the policy.  

The consultation received 147 responses. 120 responses were received through Citizen Space and 27 responses were received by email. Some respondents shared their response both through Citizen Space and email; these have been classed as a Citizen Space response and have only been counted once in individual question response statistics. Any additional information shared through email has also been considered. Where respondents did not answer a question, we have excluded them from the statistical summary for that particular question. Responses from trade associations and representative bodies reflect views from several organisations which they represent and have only been counted once in individual question response statistics.  

This document provides a summary of the consultation responses received and sets out the final charging policy in response to the points raised through the consultation. It does not attempt to reflect every point made, nor does it comment on views shared which fall outside the scope of the consultation questions. We have provided a statistical summary of respondents for each question and organised the feedback and government response under three headings: ‘Charging model’, ‘Rates’ and ‘Implementation’.  

Summary of responses and government response 

Questions 1 to 8 captured information about the respondent’s organisation type, size and location. Data from these questions is set out in Annex A.  

Charging model 

Question 9 and 10 

• Question 9 - To what extent do you agree or disagree with the Government’s intention to apply the common user charge to government-run BCPs within England? 
• Question 10 - Please provide any reasons to support your answer to Question 9.

Question 9 and 10 response

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses
Strongly agreed	11	8%
Agreed	16	12%
Neither agreed nor disagreed	22	17%
Disagreed	19	14%
Strongly disagreed	64	48%
Don’t know	1	1%

Where respondents agreed or strongly agreed, they understood the legal obligation and felt spreading the cost across all eligible SPS commodities was the fairest and most transparent way forward to recover costs. They also recognised that staffing and training needed for the effective running of a BCP is essential and costs money, and therefore agreed that some form of charge is necessary.  

Where respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed, they sometimes also stated they did not agree with the principle of charging. Another concern shared was that the proposed charging model could adversely affect other trade routes by diverting trade away from other commercial ports – for example, some port operators and users of ports felt that other commercially-run BCPs could be put at a disadvantage if charging is not imposed evenly at all points of entry across the UK because this may influence the trade route chosen by hauliers. 

Respondents generally felt they needed more detailed information to determine whether the charging proposal was fair, or whether it would work as a one size fits all approach for businesses of varying sizes.  

Question 11 and 12 

• Question 11 - To what extent do you agree or disagree with the government’s intention to extend the common user charge to include government-run BCPs within Scotland and Wales? 
• Question 12 - Please provide any reasons to support your answer to Question 11.

Question 11 and 12  response 

A total of 128 respondents answered this question.

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses
Strongly agreed	13	10%
Agreed	23	18%
Neither agreed nor disagreed	24	19%
Disagreed	12	9%
Strongly disagreed	42	33%
Don’t know	14	11%

Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal to extend the common user charge to include any planned government-run BCPs within Scotland and Wales believed a coherent approach across all government-run BCPs is essential. Those who disagreed previously stated they did not agree with the charging policy in principle (Q9 and Q10). 

Question 23  

We have designed this charging model to minimise impact across all businesses. We would welcome feedback on the impacts of the proposal on businesses of all sizes and operating different business models. We are particularly keen not to disproportionately impact small business. Please describe how you see the model impacting your business, and what would be helpful to mitigate this.

Question 23 response 

A total of 122 respondents answered this question to varying degrees. Some respondents suggested looking at different models to consider what other approach might help keep the rates low as well as provide cost savings to small businesses - such as charging by weight, by value of goods, by vehicle only, by inspection only, by capping certain consignments or by offering a flat rate to all. 

Port operators asked government to make import information available to private port operators – that is data collected through Import of Products, Animals, Food and Feed Systems (IPAFFS). Representative groups and individual businesses also asked for information about non-compliance.   

Membership and representative bodies said making groupage work for businesses of all sizes and sectors will require a better understanding of the prevalence of the use of groupage, and they considered this information essential to help businesses plan for the charges.  

Respondents who said they neither agreed nor disagreed, or stated don’t know, wanted more information about the charges and the payment administration service, requesting that this is clearly communicated in a timely and transparent manner to support effective planning for business.

Government response - charging model 

The common user charge will apply to all SPS imports eligible for BCP checks at government run BCPs and enter Great Britain through Port of Dover and Eurotunnel, from April 2024, whether or not they are selected for inspection.  

Every effort has been made to ensure the policy does not disproportionately impact small to medium-size business. A number of options have been considered for designing and calculating charges which include: charging by inspection; charging by weight; and charging by Common Health Entry Document (CHED). However, these approaches do not keep charging rates as low as possible for businesses of all sizes, therefore HM Government will not be implementing these options. 

The common user charge will be applied to each commodity line within a CHED which is eligible for checks. A commodity line refers to a quantity of goods entered as a separate line item within a common health entry document - a list of pre-populated commodity line descriptions is provided on the Import of products, animal, food and feed systems (IPAFFS) for traders to select from.  

In response to concerns that the common user charge may disproportionately impact groupage consignments, we have introduced a cap on the maximum charge for any one consignment. Medium and high-risk CHEDs will be capped at £145 and low-risk POAO CHEDs and transits will be capped at £50, regardless of how many commodity lines are present in the CHED. This will limit the cost to businesses arising from groupage loads. See the rates section for further information.

Question 13 to 14: rates 

• Question 13 - To what extent do you agree or disagree with the indicative range of charges? 
• Question 14 - Please provide any reasons to support your answer to Question 13

Question 13 and 14 response 

A total of 129 respondents answered this question.

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses
Strongly agreed	1	1%
Agreed	11	8%
Neither agreed nor disagreed	27	21%
Disagreed	22	17%
Strongly disagreed	67	52%
Don’t know	1	1%

Where respondents strongly agreed or agreed, they felt the charges were easy to understand. Sole proprietors and small to medium size businesses were most worried about the cost to business. 

Where respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed, this reflected the range of concerns about the proposal, including that the charge would have to be passed onto businesses in the supply chain or consumers because the cost could not simply be absorbed due to low profit margins. Representative bodies and small to medium size businesses were concerned about the potential prohibitive costs for groupage and the charge exceeding the value of shipments, particularly for smaller businesses who frequently import a range of imports in low volumes. 

Question 15 to 16 

• Question 15 – In your opinion, will the introduction of the proposed charges broadly have any impact for your business or organisation? 
• Question 16 – Please provide any reasons to support your answer to Question 15. 

Question 15 and 16 response 

A total of 128 respondents answered this question.

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses
Extremely positive	3	2.5%
Fairly positive	3	2.5%
Neither positive nor negative	12	9%
Fairly negative	40	31%
Extremely negative	64	50%
Don’t know or not answered	6	5%

Where respondents were extremely positive and fairly positive about the impact of the charge on their business or organisation, they also wanted the administration of the charge to be clear and easy to comply with. 

Respondents across the board felt the charge would have an extremely negative or fairly negative impact on their business and they cited different reasons including increased cost burden, food price inflation and impacts on trader behaviour – that is the charge being anti-competitive for commercial ports. Examples of challenges for business from across the sector included the different purchasing patterns of smaller businesses and the lack of volume and import data to plan for the charges, and the added cost of additional staff to administer any new payment system which would add new cost to business. There was a clear message the charge must not unfairly penalise small businesses or businesses dealing with particular product groups (for example plants, fresh fruit and vegetables), otherwise there was concern the charge could undermine free trade and competition.  

There was concern from port operators and representative bodies that Great Britain would become less competitive for imports compared to other markets across Europe. Small ports were generally concerned about their ability to attract imports. 

Question 17 to 18 

• Question 17 - To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed £10 charge for low-risk Animal Products consignments? 
• Question 18 - Please provide any reasons to support your answer to Question 17. 

Question 17 and 18 response 

A total of 128 respondents answered this question.

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses
Strongly agreed	7	5%
Agreed	19	15%
Neither agreed not disagreed	25	20%
Disagreed	25	20%
Strongly disagreed	45	35%
Don’t know	7	5%

Businesses and membership bodies who disagreed or strongly disagreed suggested the amount is arbitrary and could negatively influence trader behaviour and lead to traders fraudulently declaring goods as low-risk to avoid higher charges.  The plant sector felt £10 was too high therefore the cost of their goods could become prohibitive. 

Respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the rate felt it was fair that imports that are subject to minimal checks should pay a lower rate as this adds economies of scale. One respondent asked if discounts could be applied to other categories, such as small businesses and low value or low volume goods.   

Question 19 to 20 

• Question 19 – How frequently should government review the common user charge? 
• Question 20 – Please provide any reasons to support your answer to Question 19. 

Question 19 and 20 response 

A total of 131 respondents answered this question.

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses
Six months	28	21%
Annually	39	30%
Every two years	27	21%
Don’t know	37	28%

Respondents who supported a longer review period felt this would give certainty and enable businesses to plan and budget for the new charging regime. Respondents who supported a shorter period felt this would allow HM Government to adjust the rates sooner to line up with operating costs if operating costs changed and were cheaper.  

Government response: rates 

All views have been considered and every effort has been made to set the rates at the lowest possible levels for businesses of all sizes. The final common user charge has been designed to keep the rates as low as possible for business of all sizes and across all sectors.  

The common user charge rates applicable from 30 April 2024 are:

Commodity type	Imports	Transits
Low-risk POAO	£10	£10
Medium-risk POAO	£29	£10
High-risk POAO	£29	£10
Low-risk P and PP	no common user charge	no common user charge
Medium-risk P and PP	£29	no common user charge
High-risk P and PP	£29	no common user charge

The rates above will be charged for each commodity line in a CHED.

The maximum charge for one CHED will be limited to 5 commodity lines, even if there are more than 5 commodity lines present in the CHED. This means that medium and high-risk CHEDs will be capped at £145 and low-risk POAO CHEDs and transits will be capped at £50.

The common user charge will not apply to P and PP that will be checked at inland Control Points because they will not be subject to checks at government-run BCPs. 

Defra Trusted Trader pilot scheme members will be subject to the common user charge from 30 April 2024, and this will be reviewed as the scheme is further developed. 

VAT will not be added to the common user charge.  

The common user charge is a separate rate from fees for inspection which will apply separately and be administered by the Animal and Plant Health Authority (APHA), Port Health Authorities (PHA), or Local Authorities. APHA plant health inspection fees will be applied to categories of commodities within a CHED, with different levels of charge for each category. PHA inspection fees will be applied to each CHED and may vary across different PHAs. 

The rates will not include fees and charges applied by other government agencies (that is  APHA, PHAs and Local Authorities) and it is therefore complex to isolate the impact of the common user charge on business operations at this time. 

The common user charge rates will be reviewed and published if checks on EU SPS imports are introduced at any planned government-run BCPs in Wales and Scotland in the future. 

The common user charge will be monitored, reviewed quarterly in the first year and recalibrated annually to ensure achievement of full cost recovery of operations of government-run BCPs which serve Port of Dover and Eurotunnel. 

Common user charges for live animals will be developed separately in order to recover costs associated with operating live animal facilities at government-run BCPs. HM Government will ensure rates are published ahead of implementation to support business readiness. 

Commercial ports will continue to be responsible for setting their own rates for recovering their costs.  

Question 21 to 22: implementation 

• Question 21 – How frequently would you like the common user charge to be collected? 
• Question 22 - Please provide any reasons to support your answer to Question 21. 

Question 21 and 22  response 

A total of 131 respondents answered this question.

Response	Number of responses	Percentage of responses
Consignment	38	29%
Monthly	51	39%
Other frequencies	42	32%

Those who favoured the charges being collected monthly said this frequency would place less administrative burden on business, and it would allow time for those acting as intermediaries and agents to collect the charge from the businesses they are acting for. 

Respondents who favoured the charges being collected by consignment said it would simplify the process for them and help align the charges to the relevant import or importer. 

Where respondents reflected the need for flexibility, this was in consideration of one-off and low-volume importers or businesses who are not UK established, whereby in these circumstances the option to ‘pay as you go’ at the BCP should be offered. One respondent suggested that frequency of charging should match PHAs’ invoicing activities which would help transparency and support business process alignment. 

Question 23  

We have designed this charging model to minimise impact across all businesses. We would welcome feedback on the impacts of the proposal on businesses of all sizes and operating different business models. We are particularly keen not to disproportionately impact small business. Please describe how you see the model impacting your business, and what would be helpful to mitigate this. 

Question 23  response  

This has been reflected under the ‘Charging model’ section above. 

Question 24  

The implementation date proposed for the common user charge is 30 April 2024. We are aware that businesses face a range of global supply chain pressures and we will therefore consider the implementation date for these charges in light of broader economic conditions. Please provide any feedback on the proposed implementation date. 

Question 24  response 

A total of 83 respondents answered this question. 

19% of respondents wanted charging to be implemented as soon as the planned BCP became operational, whilst 6% agreed with the April 2024 implementation date. Respondents felt delaying the date may exacerbate the prolonged period of uncertainty many businesses currently face over the prevailing landscape of market volatility and regulatory changes. 

41% of respondents who supported delaying implementation felt this would enable ports, businesses and the supply chain to plan for the charge. They felt more time would allow for import data collection on volumes from the European Union to be used to design the charge and evaluate the impact of the policy with certainty.  

6% of respondents who said they did not want implementation to proceed at all, had also stated they strongly disagreed or disagreed with the charging proposal in their response. 

28% of respondents provided other suggestions whereby they wanted a better understanding of, for example, trade volumes and impact of the Defra Trusted Trader pilot scheme due to fewer SPS checks for those members. One respondent was supportive of treating implementation as a pilot, and a few reflected the merits of aligning implementation with other charging regimes applied to the sector. 

Government response: implementation 

The common user charge will be implemented from 30 April 2024 on POAO and P and PP imports eligible for SPS checks at government-run BCP facilities which serve Port of Dover and Eurotunnel. 

HM Government recognises there are advantages of extending the common user charge to all planned government-run BCPs in Great Britain to support trade continuity across all our administrations. The common user charge rates will be reviewed and published ahead of implementation for any planned government-run BCPS in Wales or Scotland in the future. 

Live animal imports will not be subject to the common user charge until live animals are subject to inspections at any planned government-run BCPs. HM Government is not yet in a position to confirm the common user charge for live animals and will ensure rates are published ahead of implementation to support business readiness.  

HM Government want to ensure that the administration process for the common user charge is implemented to support business readiness. We are committed to ensuring businesses will be supported to comply with the policy through education and guidance. We will ensure the administration process to pay the charge is designed to support business readiness to make payments. Details about the process and administration of the charge including how and when importers will be invoiced will be set out in guidance.  

A compliance regime will be put in place to deter payment avoidance or late payment. Information and guidance about how to comply with paying the common user charge and what support is available to help businesses, if this is needed, will be made available in guidance to support business readiness. 

HM Government will keep the rates under review and monitor the policy for unintended consequences and will consider the context of the charge on businesses of all sizes through policy evaluation. Quarterly reviews will be undertaken in the first year of implementation to monitor import notification volumes through IPAFFS, levels of payment compliance and import flow through planned government-run BCP facilities.

Annex A: statistical breakdown about respondents

The table below provides a breakdown of the consultation responses by type of respondent.

Types of respondents	Number of responses
UK businesses	51
International businesses	25
Ferry operator, logistics, haulage, or intermediary businesses	28
Trade associations, representative bodies	26
UK seaports, airports, or international rail facilities	7
Public sector bodies	7
Not specified	3

The table below provides a breakdown of the consultation responses by size of business.

Size of business	Number of responses
Sole proprietorship (a business run by one self-employed person)	5
Ordinary partnership (a business run by two or more self-employed people)	5
Small and medium-sized enterprises (0 to 249 employees)	68
Large business (250 or more employees)	34
Not answered	35

The table below provides a breakdown of where the respondent or their organisation said they were based. Some respondents provided more than one location.

Location	Number of responses
England	97
Scotland	27
Wales	15
Northern Ireland	13
Other	21
Not answered	21

The table below provides a breakdown of where the organisation said it is importing SPS consignments from. Some respondents provided more than one location.

Location	Number of responses
Imports from mainland Europe	99
Imports from Republic of Ireland	10
Imports from rest of world	11
Not applicable	11
Not answered	21

The table below provides a breakdown of importers only, on their likelihood to import goods that would, if called for inspection, need to attend a government-run BCP.

Frequency	Number of responses
Never	3
Infrequently (one a year)	7
Occasionally (monthly)	17
Frequently (weekly or more)	53
Not answered	67