1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188 
Industry 'policing borders'
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Ti-IF UK BORDER Agency is unable to allay operators' concerns that it is placing too much emphasis on drivers completing checklists as proof of their innocence when stowaways are found inside trucks.
An investigation into search procedures at foreign ports has revealed unease among drivers, transport lawyers and trade associations that the results of hightech CO, checks and infrared scans count for nothing if a company has not ensured its drivers are checking vehicles in compliance with government guidance.
The issue was highlighted by the experience of John English Transport, which was fined £2,400 when three illegal immigrants were found in one of its trailers at Calais. This was after the driver had checked his trailer three times and received negative results from infrared scans and CO, checks.
The Home Office argued that the company was not ensuring drivers carried out checks exactly as stated in the government's code of practice. English managed to get the fine cancelled.
He says: "The checks don't make any sense. Whoever wrote [the code of practice] has no idea of what they are saying."
Transport lawyer Tim Culpin says: "The industry is being expected to police our borders: drivers are not well equipped to deal with that."
A UK Border Agency spokeswoman says: "Third-party checks are a useful addition to an effective system but are not a defence against the imposition of a penalty."
See page 28 for CMIs investigation into stowaways.