ES News email The latest headlines in your inbox twice a day Monday - Friday plus breaking news updates Enter your email address Continue Please enter an email address Email address is invalid Fill out this field Email address is invalid You already have an account. Please log in Register with your social account or click here to log in I would like to receive lunchtime headlines Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts, by email Update newsletter preferences

Britain would be more vulnerable to outbreaks of animal-borne diseases such as salmonella and swine flu in the event of a no-deal Brexit, London’s port watchdog has warned.

The City of London Port Health Authority has rejected the Government’s proposed strategy of building livestock screening centres inland to cope with an anticipated 25 per cent increase in checks on imports.

The body, which has responsibility for docks and wharves along the Thames, as well as imports via Heathrow airport , said such a move would put human and animal health at risk.

At present, livestock, shellfish, meat, and animal feed arriving from Europe must meet common safety and quality standards at source, meaning it is not inspected as rigorously as non-EU ­produce. The arrangement enables perishable goods and animals to move around the bloc relatively smoothly.

The controls exist to prevent the spread of diseases such as foot and mouth, bird flu and bluetongue, as well as to identify contaminated batches, such as those that triggered the 2013 horse meat scandal.

Unless a deal is done to keep Britain in a borderless EU trade area for goods and agriculture, Britain may bring back full checks of products coming in from member states.

Karen Wheeler, HMRC’s director general for border co-ordination, said customs checkpoints could be built inland to accommodate parking, storage, quarantine and laboratory facilities outside already congested docks.

Last week the City of London agreed that its position was to oppose any move to build customs checks for high-risk food, feed and animals away from the first point of entry.

Jon Averns, director of port health for the City of London, which also oversees the deep-sea London Gateway container port and Heathrow animal reception centre, said such a move “defeats the purpose” of border checks.

He warned that it raised the potential for the spread of diseases because food and animals would already be on home soil before they are detected. “The whole principle of border control is you stop anything there rather than getting it inland,” Mr Averns said. “The border is the most logical and appropriate location to control imports, as there is greater potential to evade checks once consignments have left the port.”

Tory MP Neil Parish, chairman of the Commons environment, food and rural affairs committee, said the warnings should be taken very seriously.

“The biggest danger is probably to animal health but there are also imports of bush meats which can carry diseases dangerous to humans and I have concerns that these could slip through in greater quantities,” he said.

“Brexit could be an opportunity to make Britain more bio-secure, but that will need good quality checks.

“The right place for those checks is at ports themselves.”

Anticipating an increased workload, London’s ports are already increasing health staff by 15 per cent with new vets, officers and apprentices.

A government spokesman said: “Our proposal for a common rulebook, as part of a free trade area for goods, would remove the need to undertake new regulatory checks at the border.”