THE UK Government has dropped plans to impose further checks on goods entering the UK from the European Union.
Brexit Opportunities Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg said it would be “wrong to impose new administrative burdens and risk disruption at ports” and added that no further import controls would be imposed on EU goods this year.
The change means restrictions on the imports of chilled meats from the EU and border checks on plant and animal products will not be introduced in July.
Instead, Rees-Mogg said a “new regime of border import controls” will be established by the end of 2023.
READ MORE: Rees-Mogg tells Andrew Marr 'perspective' needed after presenter touches on father's death
Goods moving from the UK will continue to be subject to checks in the EU despite the Government deciding not to introduce the controls in Britain.
Controls which have already been introduced in the UK will remain in place.
In a statement to MPs, Rees-Mogg said: “When the UK left the European Union, we regained the right to manage our own borders in a way that works for Britain.
“This includes how we manage imports into our country from overseas.
“British businesses and people going about their daily lives are being hit by rising costs caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine and in energy prices.
“It would therefore be wrong to impose new administrative burdens and risk disruption at ports and to supply chains at this point. The remaining import controls on EU goods will no longer be introduced this year – saving British businesses up to £1 billion in annual costs.”
The new border regime will apply equally to goods from the EU and from the rest of the world.
Rees-Mogg said it will be based on “a proper assessment of risk, with a proportionate, risk-based and technologically advanced approach to controls”.
The Government has vowed to have “the world’s best border” following the decision to leave the EU’s single market and customs union.
The controls due in July which have been abandoned include prohibitions and restrictions on the import of chilled meats from the EU, safety and security declarations, and changes to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks on plant and animal products.
It comes after a Scottish Government minister issued a warning over the UK's replacement funding for EU cash.
Richard Lochhead said it is a “struggle” to understand how the Shared Prosperity Fund is a suitable replacement for EU funding.
READ MORE: Jacob Rees-Mogg sparks fury with demand to civil servants
Lochhead said two “key promises” – a replacement to EU funding, and respect towards devolution post-Brexit – had been broken by Westminster.
He told MSPs: “The UK Government is offering Scotland £212 million over a three-year period – way below our expectations, and way below matching EU funding.
“The Scottish Government calculates that £183 million per year was required to replace EU funding.
“Multiplying that over the same three-year SPF period, Scotland should, of course, receive at least £549 million.”
He said the numbers do not add up, adding: “Levelling up, it seems, to the UK Government means losing out for all of Scotland.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel