MPs have ordered a minister to respond to concerns raised by Dover port health chiefs about a decision not to use a state-of-the-art facility at Dover for bio-security checks.

The minister of state Steven Barclay has been given until Monday to address claims made in a detailed 11-page letter from the Dover Port Health Authority.

The letter sets out how port health officials believe moving checks on food being imported from non-EU countries to a facility near Ashford will increase the risk of contaminated products entering the UK.

It warns switching the process from Bastion Point in Dover – as originally thought - to the Ashford border force facility 22 miles away at Sevington would leave a ‘gaping hole’ that could be exploited.

There is concern that potentially hazardous food could evade checks as less scrupulous importers may choose to ignore the need for officials to inspect goods coming in.

“Lorries will arrive at Dover and leave unchecked and uncontrolled to self-present if they choose at Sevington. Defra will create a gaping hole in this border that does not currently exist, and specifically when it comes to the entry of high-risk Rest of World animal products.”

It continues: “The daily number of physical inspections required, if the facility were to be operated correctly, considerably exceeds Sevington’s capacity for consolidated food checks.”

A letter from the director of Dover Port of Health Lucy Manzano to the chairman of the Defra select committee Sir Robert Goodhill refers to earlier correspondence with the former minister: “I am disappointed to observe that the letter to you [Sir Robert] does not answer the questions asked, contains many points of inaccuracy, and includes statements that are both confused and misleading as to the current position at the frontline and the position as planned by Defra post April 2024.”

The letter also rebuts Defra on who should meet the costs of providing the service, and how much.

The port authority says overall yearly costs for checking and inspecting goods is about £4m but the government is only committed to a much lower sum.

The letter also describes as “startling” that the Sevington site does not yet have the required lawful authority to conduct checks and questions its capacity, stating: “Defra’s anticipated daily physical inspection rates are in stark contrast to DPHA’s established and operational analysis of import data, which concludes that Defra’s assumptions are “significantly incorrect and by an order of magnitude. The daily number of physical inspections required, if the facility were to be operated correctly, considerably exceeds Sevington’s capacity for consolidated food checks.”