AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

The devil's in the detail

20th April 2006, Page 34
20th April 2006
Page 34
Page 35
Page 34, 20th April 2006 — The devil's in the detail
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?

Keywords :

A law designed to improve national security could bury UK-based

interanational hauliers in red tape. Dominic Perry reports.

Late last month, the government's Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill slipped quietly into law after being given Royal Assent. The government claims that the bill will help manage immigration more effectively, strengthen the country's borders and deny terrorists the right to asylum in this country.

However, behind the headlines and government spin there is a clause in the bill that could cause the transport industry an enormous headache — and it appears to have passed most people by.

The clause in question, in Section 33, is entitled Freight information: police powers. What it means is that when any ship, plane or truck is arriving at or about to leave the country, a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above candemand a certain level of information about the vehicle and its load from its owner or operator for a period of up to six months. The penalty for non-compliance could be as much as six months in prison and/or a fine. So far, so good mosthauliers should know what they're carrying, to a certain degree. But it's the level of detail that a police officer can demand that makes things problematic.

According to the Freight Transport Association (FTA ), the list is almost endless (see panel)— but could include a description of the goods, their origin and destination , shipping marks, document numbers and the invoice amount — in some cases information that only the consignor could have knowledge of.

Although the measures can only be put into place once another piece of legislation has been passed, there is already a gaping hole in the proposals: foreign vehicles might well be exempt from this legislation. With the crossChannel truck freight split 25%-75% in favour of foreign operators, there has to be a serious question mark over whether the additional legislative burden will he worth the end result.

Dr Andrew Trail!, head of maritime poky at the FTA, says all interested parties are in discussions with the Home Office. He adds: "We're saying Please drop this immediately'. Does it really understand what it's asking for? There are many hauliers who won't have that information available.

"Some of it will be available, but not necessarily easily accessible," he adds. "The plans are currently unworkable.We're trying to tell them that they'd he better doing this through other channels." In his view foreign firms will be exempt from the rules, although others say if they are delivering to a UK address they will be included. However, clearly exports won't be covered.

Cost concerns

Not withstanding the added administrative burden this will present to UK operators, there are worries over cost as well,Tra ill explains. He says that the potential costs of the legislation are huge running into millions of pounds. lie warns: "This could make UK cross-Channel operators less competitive as well.Why choose one with this burden of legislation when you could get a French haulier who wouldn't need to comply to do the job?"

Trail! thinks those with groupage loads (or worse still, a 40ft double-deck artic full of palletised consignments for one of the networks) will find it particularly difficult to comply with the legislation due to the sheer volume of data required for each consignment.

Peter Cullum, head of international affairs at the Road Haulage Association, echoes Traill's concerns. but says the industry does not want to he seen as uncooperative when it comes to national security matters. However, he believes the rules in their present form are potentially unworkable: "We're talking to the Home Office, but it seems to have made a number of assumptions not borne out by facts.

"It is asking that every single person in the supply chain has this information. I just don't think it fully grasps what is required."

Part of the problem, according to Cullum, is that with the advent of the single European market in the early 1990s and the concept of open borders, most of the experts and expertise in this field left the industry.

Cullum also fears that the information the police could require may differ from the CM R or Customs codes that hauliers are used to presenting: "After all, a load can be listed as 'agricultural machinery' hut what does that mean? It might not be specific enough. Besides, you aren't going to declare something clandestine.

"We're asking how much extra security we're getting for the amount of money we're putting in and at present we just don't know," he says, "At the moment we aren't saying it's good or had were just trying to figure out what's required and the extent of the effort involved for the security gain."

Traill, however, is adopting a tougher stance: "We're trying to tell the Home Office not to go down this track as it is fraught with chaos and difficulties. I'm hopeful that common sense will prevail and it will drop the idea." •


comments powered by Disqus