Brexit food control post at Portsmouth ‘may have to be demolished’, says port director

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Portsmouth Border Control Post's Future Uncertain Following EU Deal Changes"

Brexit food control post at Portsmouth ‘may have to be demolished’, says port director analysis cover image The Guardian 7.0
Image Source: https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/e6cf6cd25f4319b2d2edba7df51363f3b0796ee5/560_0_5600_4480/master/5600.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctZGVmYXVsdC5wbmc&enable=upscale&s=cb35fc3ed8af340767b0fa62a9819e0e
Original Article Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/21/brexit-food-control-post-at-portsmouth-may-have-to-be-demolished-says-port-director
View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.0
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The Portsmouth port director, Mike Sellers, has indicated that the newly constructed £25 million border control post may need to be demolished if the UK government's recent agreement with the EU leads to the elimination of health and veterinary checks on food imports. This facility was originally built to facilitate post-Brexit checks on a variety of goods, including meat, dairy, and vegetables, but has seen limited use since its inception. Sellers previously criticized the site as a 'white elephant,' highlighting that more than half of the facility remains unused due to significant reductions in the number of required inspections since the facility's design phase. The announcement of the new deal by Labour leader Keir Starmer, which includes the scrapping of routine checks on certain goods, raises questions about the future necessity of such infrastructure at the port.

The border control post, which includes 14 lorry bays and spans 8,000 square meters, was intended to manage the inspection of both low- and high-risk goods, yet it has only averaged three inspections per day since it began operations in April last year, a stark contrast to the 80 checks it was designed to handle daily. The port's financial burden has increased, as it received only £17.1 million from the government infrastructure fund, falling short of the £32 million it sought. This has led Portsmouth City Council to take out loans to cover the shortfall, leaving the local authority approximately £6 million in the red. The British Ports Association has echoed calls for compensation for ports that invested heavily in now-redundant infrastructure, emphasizing the financial strain of maintaining such facilities. As the future of the border control post hangs in the balance, both the port and the BPA advocate for compensation to offset the losses incurred due to changing import regulations.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article highlights significant concerns regarding the future of a £25 million border control post in Portsmouth, which may face demolition if the UK government’s negotiations with the EU lead to the removal of health checks on food imports. This situation reflects the shifting landscape of post-Brexit regulations and trade policies.

Public Perception and Sentiment

This news piece aims to evoke a sense of uncertainty and disappointment among the public regarding the effectiveness of Brexit-related infrastructure investments. By describing the facility as a "white elephant," it implies a waste of resources and questions the government's planning abilities. The sentiments expressed by port director Mike Sellers emphasize the need for clarity and practicality in government decisions, further fostering public skepticism toward governmental efficiency.

Underlying Issues and Concealment

The article does not explicitly conceal any information, but it does focus on the logistical and financial implications of Brexit on border controls. By concentrating on this specific facility, it may divert attention from broader economic implications of Brexit, such as trade relations with the EU and potential food security issues. The limited scope of the article could lead readers to overlook these more complex concerns.

Manipulative Elements

While the article is straightforward in its reporting, the use of terms like "white elephant" can be seen as manipulative, framing the situation to evoke a negative response towards government expenditure. The language suggests inefficiency and waste, which may not fully encompass the broader context of post-Brexit trade adjustments.

Reliability and Truthfulness

The news is based on statements from a credible source, the port director, and reflects ongoing developments in UK-EU relations. However, the article's framing may influence perceptions, making it essential for readers to consider the broader context of Brexit's impact on trade and logistics.

Potential Socioeconomic and Political Impact

The implications of this news extend beyond Portsmouth, potentially affecting public trust in government decisions regarding Brexit. If the facility is indeed rendered unnecessary, it may lead to calls for reevaluation of other infrastructure investments made post-Brexit. The discussion around trade smoothness could resonate with various stakeholders, from businesses to the general public.

Target Audience and Community Support

This article may resonate more with communities directly affected by Brexit, such as those in logistics, import-export businesses, and local government stakeholders. It appeals to those who are concerned about the economic ramifications of Brexit and the government's handling of trade infrastructure.

Market Reactions and Economic Implications

The news could influence market perceptions regarding the stability of the UK's post-Brexit trade environment. Stocks related to logistics and import-export sectors might experience volatility as investors react to potential regulatory changes. The long-term implications for these sectors depend on how government policies evolve in response to negotiations with the EU.

Global Power Dynamics

While the article primarily focuses on a local issue, its implications reflect wider economic trends that could affect the UK's position in global trade. The evolving relationship with the EU post-Brexit is pivotal, particularly as other nations observe the UK's handling of trade regulations and border controls.

Artificial Intelligence in Reporting

There is no clear indication that AI has been used in crafting this article. However, if AI were involved, it might have influenced the tone or choice of language to emphasize certain aspects of the story, such as the financial implications or the facility's underutilization, potentially steering public sentiment.

Manipulative Potential

The article's language and focus do suggest a degree of manipulation, as it highlights the negative aspects of the border control post without providing a balanced view of its potential benefits or the complexities of post-Brexit trade.

In summary, while the article presents factual updates on the Portsmouth border control post, its framing and selective focus may lead to a narrative that shapes public perception of Brexit's consequences and the government's effectiveness in managing the transition.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Source URL: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/21/brexit-food-control-post-at-portsmouth-may-have-to-be-demolished-says-port-director

A £25m post-Brexit border control post in Portsmouth may have to be demolished if theUK government’s deal with the EUremoves the need for health and veterinary checks on food imports, according to the port’s director.

Mike Sellers had already spoken out last yearabout how more than half of the site would never be usedbecause planned checks on EU food and plant products had been pared back since it was designed, leading to the building being called a “white elephant”.

The hi-tech facility at the UK’s second busiest cross-Channel terminal was one of more than 100 border control posts (BCPs) around the countrybuilt to government specificationsto handle post-Brexit checks on imports subject to sanitary and phytosanitary checks, such as meat, fish, dairy products, fruit and vegetables.

Under Keir Starmer’s deal with the EU announced on Monday, someroutine checks on animal and plant products would be scrapped completely.

“Anything that would smooth the movement of trade as well as passengers around the port is welcomed, although the devil is in the detail,” said Sellers. “Based on Monday’s announcement and the information that has been provided, we believe that then negates the need for the border control post,” he added, leaving it with two costly choices.

Sellers said the port’s owner,Portsmouthcity council, could either “repurpose the facility and see whether we can get another use out of it, or demolish it to give us some more operational land”.

Boasting 14 lorry bays, Portsmouth’s 8,000 sq metre (86,000 sq ft) border site was designed to allow inspection of low- and high-risk goods in air-lock quarantine zones to prevent cross-contamination.

However, it has been heavily underused since it began operating in April last year, after the previous Conservative government’s changes to its post-Brexit import regime, known as the border target operating model, whichsignificantly reduced the number of tests required.

An average of three checks have been carried out each day at Portsmouth’s BCP in the 12 months since it began operating, Sellers said, compared with the 80 a day for which it was built.

It and other ports have also been unable to earn the expected amount of money from levying charges on importers for the goods checks.

Portsmouth, along with 40 other ports, received £200m in government funding for the new control posts. However, theport infrastructure fundwas oversubscribed, meaning the ports themselves had to spend an estimated £120m to cover the remaining building costs.

Sellers’ port received £17.1m from the fund after applying for £32m, forcing the council to take out a loan to cover the shortfall.

Sign up toBusiness Today

Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning

after newsletter promotion

The British Ports Association (BPA) has welcomed the new deal between the UK and the EU, but isreiterating its call for compensationfor ports that were forced to build now-redundant border infrastructure.

“The sector is out of pocket by £120m in infrastructure costs and ongoing costs,” said Richard Ballantyne, the industry body’s chief executive.

“It is very expensive to repurpose and modify the border facilities, and in some cases it will be more cost-effective to demolish them. We are left in a precarious situation of not knowing what to do, but ultimately the cost will need to be passed on as port operations can’t continue taking a hit.”

The BPA estimates that the running costs for a larger BCP, such as Portsmouth, with about 15 lorry bays will be £200,000 a year, to cover energy, cleaning, insurance and business rates. Smaller BCPs may have running costs of about £100,000 a year.

Portsmouth is backing the BPA’s call for compensation, and said the local authority had been left about £6m out of pocket.

“We have been left with this huge white elephant,” said Sellers. “We are not blessed with a lot of operational land, and this took up acres of land and the opportunity cost around that. We were unable to handle some of the potential new business that could have come through Portsmouth.”

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian