It’s rare that a parliamentary committee session captures, so vividly and so accurately, the daily reality faced by our sector. But this week’s evidence to MPs from the transport industry did exactly that. And we’d encourage readers to dip-in to the recording and listen for themselves.

When logistics operators describe post-Brexit export processes as “pure hell”, recounting lorries being chased down motorways for missing stamps or frozen meat stranded in Calais for weeks over a minor clerical error, they are not exaggerating. They are describing the system that British meat exporters and their customers have been living with every day for several years now.

So first, credit where it is due. We warmly welcome the serious attention the Business and Trade Committee is now giving to our sector and to the real-world consequences of the post-Brexit SPS and border regime. It’s difficult to ignore the practical evidence being put forward by the people who actually move food around for a living.

This is not about politics. It is about physics, logistics, shelf life and cost.

Before Brexit, exporting meat to the EU was straightforward. Today, it is a labyrinth of forms, stamps, inspections, duplicated processes and constant risk. One small error can wipe out the value of an entire load. Every extra hour at the border chips away at product life, customer confidence and competitiveness.

The result is not theoretical. UK food and drink exports are still dramatically down on where they were. Many smaller exporters have simply given up. Others continue, but at higher cost, higher risk and lower margins. This is not a sustainable position for a country that wants to grow, trade and remain a serious food-producing nation.

That is why the prospect of a UK–EU veterinary (SPS) agreement is so important, and why we strongly support the government’s current direction of travel.

Done properly, such an agreement would help exporters, importers, logistics firms, retailers, processors, farmers and, ultimately, consumers. It’s one of the few changes available that could deliver an immediate, tangible boost to growth.

And it’s very encouraging that the government seems as determined as industry to secure a pragmatic, workable deal that fixes the problem.

However, there is a real risk we must guard against.

As soon as negotiations of this kind begin, there is always a chorus of voices calling for special “carve-outs”, exemptions and bespoke arrangements. Each one, in isolation, may sound reasonable but in practice, they add complexity, slow everything down, and risk derailing the whole process.

We would urge everyone involved to keep a sense of proportion.

If we end up with a long list of red lines that deliver marginal benefits for a few but delay or weaken a deal that could remove friction for the entire sector, we will all be worse off.

The prize here is not a collection of niche exemptions. The prize is the near-elimination of the crippling trade friction that is holding the whole industry back.

We want the government to negotiate firmly and confidently in the UK’s interests. But we also want it to keep its eyes firmly on the bigger picture of growth, competitiveness, food security and a properly functioning trading system.

This is one of those rare moments where the interests of government, industry, consumers and the wider economy are closely aligned. A sensible SPS agreement would benefit everyone.

The evidence from transport operators, exporters and processors is now overwhelming. The current system is broken. We know what would fix most of it. Now is the time to get it done.

Watch the recording