On borders, my frustration is that we have tried to engage with UK Ministers on the rapidly evolving situation, and we have not made progress because there has not been a willingness to engage with us, as the Member recognised in his opening, and recognised that meaningful dialogue has not taken place with devolved Governments. I've indicated that my recent letter was to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 24 March, and I still haven't had the courtesy of a response.

In terms of what the future model should look like, well, we're really, in many ways, interested, with, of course, devolved responsibilities, around sanitary and phytosanitary checks—essentially, plant and animal health, and products based on them. Now, the difficulty, in terms of what the future model will look like, is that that's all been put off. We were going to have a model, we were looking to spend money on creating border control posts, and in many ways it was worse than in England, with more money having been spent on both recruiting staff and also creating physical facilities. We were due to be letting a contract to Kier construction, which I've announced publicly before, to create permanent facilities in Holyhead in spring 2023. We're now not sure if we're going to go ahead with those, because we don't have the certainty on what we're going to need to create to maintain what should be an effective and coherent system across Britain for imports. So, I can't honestly tell you what the new model will look like because we haven't had those discussions and the UK Government haven't given us a clear idea what they think a new model should look like, other than it will be technology based. That's why we can't engage in detail with stakeholders following the announcement. It's also why I can't tell you about your further question about the new technology to ease the flow of goods, and an update on it. We've only been told it will be technology, not what the technology is, not how far advanced it is, nor even how it could be procured, nor even what the cost would be for nations within the UK for a new form of system. Because, actually, we have devolved responsibilities, but there's a great deal of sense in having a common approach in each part of the UK. And it goes on to the point you made about African swine fever that I'll come to. So, we want to be collaborative, but it does require people to talk with us, to share information and for there to be genuine engagement on what a technology answer will be and how much it can do. It could speed up the flow of some goods, but, actually, there may well be limits.

And it comes to some of the points that you have made on swine fever, for example. We currently have destination checks on 5 per cent of livestock coming in. That means 19 out of 20 aren't checked at destination. There have, though, in conversation—you asked me about conversation with the chief vet and with Lesley Griffiths, in her role as Minister for rural affairs—. I had a conversation last week with Lesley Griffiths and I spoke with the chief vet this morning, and, indeed, we are aware that some of those destination checks are revealing challenges. Now, the challenge is that, actually, currently in continental Europe, there are more risks. The destination checks pick up some of those but not all of them. So, actually, from a biosecurity point of view, having checks at borders is more important because we have left the European Union. And, as the British Veterinary Association have pointed out, we now no longer have access to the early surveillance and warning system that EU member states have; they have an integrated and highly responsive surveillance system that we're not part of. And we don't then have the border control checks to try to add to our own protections now we're not part of that system—we don't have a line of sight in it. So, we actually have a worsened position in not being part of that without, then, creating the import infrastructure to provide greater protection for farming communities. I know the Member will be aware of that from his own constituency.

When it comes to challenges for import and export businesses—and not just for the farming community, but it's an obvious example, which is why the NFU have been so clear and critical on the decision—goods that come in from the European Union are not going to be subject to checks, whereas, actually, British farmers looking to export their produce will be subject to those checks. So, there's an uneven playing field that has been extended for a range of businesses, and it's understandable why the NFU have been sharply critical of the move that has taken place at very short notice.

I'll deal with your final points about border control sites. Well, Johnston is off the agenda. We've explained why that is, previously, in the statement that I've made. We will of course need to look at alternative sites, but, to do that, we need to understand what the future infrastructure is going to be. I can hardly set out and direct officials to go and look at those without there being an understanding of what future border controls are going to look like, how much physical infrastructure will be needed and where it would need to be and how close to our ports.

That also goes to your point about future costs. The UK Treasury will need to take a view on future costs. We want them to properly fund the costs of border controls that come directly from the UK  decision to introduce any form of leaving the European Union with the new checks that we are required to undertake. It is entirely likely that construction costs will rise. I'm not sure we'll need to retender for the exercise we've already undertaken, but all of these uncertainties do neatly encapsulate the challenge in a very short notice and late decision and an entirely new policy direction with an end date in mind without a clear understanding on how to get there.