you want to comment on any stories in Commercial Mote
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Does someone in the dustry deserve a pat on the back, or a dressing down? Drop us aline at Commercial °tor, Room H203, Quadrant House, The Quadrant, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5AS OP fax us 1020 8652 8971. Alternatively you can e-mail melanie.hammend®rbl.ce.uk.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Ken Taylor's letter again highlights the injustice and unfairness of the Illegal Immigration & Asylum Act of 1999 (CM 24-30 May).
Over the past three years both the RHA and FTA have attempted to bring some common sense to the situation, but they have been stonewalled by government ministers who are totally out of touch with the realities of haulage operators and who do not wish to listen to or understand the difficulties faced by operators and drivers because of the stowaway problem. Throughout negotiations the government has maintained that it is not a political problem but a transport problem.
The government now claims that its policy has succeeded. However, the numbers being found at UK ports have reduced because the industry (P&G Stena, Calais Chambers of Commerce and Le Shuttle) has introduced CO2 checks and the RHA/FTA have developed guidelines and checklists for operations and drivers; all without UK government support.
Yes, drivers and operators are being more vigilant but,just as people will always escape from secure prisons, so will illegals manage to get aboard vehicles undetected and remain so in spite of checks.
And whereas drivers previously reported stowaways to the authorities, now they just let them loose, because the reward for honesty from this government's legislation is a fixed penalty fine.
Meanwhile there are hundreds of UK and foreign hauliers whose objections have been rejected and who refuse to pay the fine who are still waiting to be taken to court which is, according to the government, when they will be able to appeal.
In some cases it is now over a year since the imposition of the penalty, and the cost of defending a court action is high. This is what the government calls an appeal!
Finally, two solicitors representing UK and foreign hauliers are soon to go to the High Court on this issue and it is hoped that the resulting decision will initiate ajudicial review of this iniquitous legislation.
For those who may wish to be involved in this action contact Ian Rothera at Rothera Dowson Solicitors, Nottingham; phone, 0115 910 0600.
For Ken Taylor and many others in the same boat, loan only sympathise and stress that behind the scenes there is a great deal of hard work going on to resolve the problem. Mike Freeman,
Road Haulage Association, Weybridge, Surrey.
MINISTERIAL MODESTY
In claiming credit for allowing 44-tonne lorries "first recommended in 1980'', Gus Macdonald is too modest by 10 years (Sound Off, CM24-30 May).
The recommendation goes back to 1970 and, but for the Conservative win in that year's general election, would almost certainly have been implemented in 1971.
Moreover it would then have been 44 imperial tons—getting on for 45 of what the admirable Sir Jos Spagthorpe probably calls "those pansy foreign" units. Reg Dawson, Tywyn, Wales.
HIGHER PAY IS THE WAY
With reference to the Fleet Focus article on training drivers and self help (CM17-23 May), I am one of many who have left the industry for an easier life. The article completely misses the point. Why train drivers up to standard only for them to leave? And leave they will unless pay and conditions are looked at seriously.
Instead, effort should be put into looking at ways to get the experienced professional drivers back into the industry.
I recently went into a job centre and was amazed how many drivers were being asked for (15-20 in Caerphilly)—and most companies were only offering the national minimum wage i Good luck to all transport managers.
Brian Could,
Evesham, Worcs.