AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Scanning for sense

17th April 2003, Page 9
17th April 2003
Page 9
Page 9, 17th April 2003 — Scanning for sense
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?

It's unfortunate that the response from Home Office Minister Lord Filkin to Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes' question: "Why aren't truck drivers given written proof of stowaway scanning at Channel Ports?" doesn't actually answer it (see page 6)—although we hardly expected it to.

According to Lord Filkin, regularly checking a truck for stowaways during its journey is not an onerous task. Oh really? Has the Noble Lord ever tried clambering around inside a loaded trailer? Likewise has he (or they) tried climbing up the side of one to make sure stowaways haven't cut their way in through the roof?

However, the most worrying paragraph within Lord Filkin's letter contains the admission that "detection technology has not yet proved itself to have reached the level of total effectiveness that would enable us to accept it as a substitute for the measures required by the code of practice". So if scanning isn't i00% effective why introduce it at great cost in the first place? Compared to forcing a driver to constantly check a dark, loaded trailer, scanning is clearly the most effective method of stowaway detection as proven by the latest PTA study. However, we still don't see why drivers can't be given a 'stowaway-free' certificate.

A cynic might suggest it suits the Home Office not to push for scanning certificates— because if a stowaway is subsequently found in a thick, guess who carries the can?

Tags

People: Filkin, Simon Hughes