AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

di It was recently announced that the British Government has

14th November 2002
Page 54
Page 54, 14th November 2002 — di It was recently announced that the British Government has
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

capitulated to a group of hauliers, led by a firm of London-based solicitors, who argued against the imposition of heavy fines under the immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The hauliers' fines, which totalled £2m, have been quashed and their legal costs have been paid. This result must have been very gratifying for the group of hauliers who could afford to employ a high powered legal firm to tight their

case. But where does it leave the rest of the industry?

In December 2001, the High Court found against the government when it decreed that the penalty was unfair and contravened the European Convention on Human Rights. Knowing the government's readiness to bow down to the dictates of Brussels, one would have assumed that they would review the legislation rather than continue to blame an industry already crippled by exorbitant fuel taxation.

But no, they took the case to the Court of Appeal. This court overturned the High Court ruling that the fining policy does not contravene free trade laws but it concurred in the matter of the

contravention of Human Rights. However, the wording of the rulii gave the government enough rope to try and hang us. It was only the system of having a fixed-rate fine that was deemed to be unfe So, in order to circumvent the problem, the Home Office has decided to stagger the amount of the fines according to culpabilil and the maximum fine will be 24,000—double the original amoun This fine can be issued to the driver as well as the operator. The operator is not obligated to pay the driver's fine.

The company I work for fell foul of this penalty shortly after introduction. We were lucky to a degree as the tine was eventually withdrawn because we had followed the appropriate guidelines. However, we had weeks of waiting and wondering h• we were going to find the $10,000 to pay the fine if we were unsuccessful. The driver was seriously shaken and felt that he had been treated like a criminal; he has only very recently ventured back onto the Continent.

We also had a large solicitor's bill—almost $1,000. That was ti cost of proving our innocence to the Home Office, When I approached David Gale, a senior immigration officer, about recovering our legal costs he said that that would be impossible, the fine was the result of a civil penalty and not a criminal action. I wonder if I would have received the same answer if I had had the backing of a team of lawyers.

This penalty is unfair. The Home Office has found a scapegoat the haulage industry and it is the smaller firms and the ownerdrivers who are really suffering. The government has the power I impound vehicles if it thinks you are unable to pay the fine; it will also charge you for the privilege of doing so. If you appeal against the penalty you will be appealing to the very body that issued the fine in the first place; effectively you are tried by your accusers.

Many firms have already paid the fines because they had to. TI is not a rich industry and the British government is systematically destroying it. We are subject to the highest fuel duty in Europe, rat are decreasing because of increased competition from foreign hauliers and now we are being used as a smoke screen to cover government incompetence.


comments powered by Disqus