Do you want to comment on any stories in Commercial
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IllotorPDoes someone in the industry deserve a pat on the bad, era dressing down? Drop us a line at Commercial Motor, Room H203, Quadrant House, The Quadrant, Sutton, Surrey SA12 5AS or fax us on 020 6652 8969. Alternatively you can e-mail CharlesYoung®rbi.co.uk.
SCARED AND POWERLESS
This is a copy of a letter posted to my MP:
Can you tell me, if illegal immigrants had been found dead in my trailer, would I now be facing manslaughter charges? Please consider this---it is extremely worrying.
On the morning of Saturday 19 June 2000 one of our trucks entered Dover from Calais and was inspected by the Immigration Control where it was found to contain six illegal immigrants (asylum seekers) concealed in the trailer. Our driver was questioned and then asked if he could pay a £12,000 penalty.
He told them he could not and I was contacted by Immigration by telephone and informed of this and was told that I must send a written guarantee to Dover in order to get my truck and driver released from custody.
Since then I have contacted several solicitors and hauliers and have discovered that similar actions have been taken. One of these solicitors told me thatlshould be following the new code of practice issued in April 2000.1 asked where I could obtain a copy, as I had never seen or heard of this before. I was told to look at the Home Office web site. I do not have access to the Internet so I asked one of my main customers to do this for me, and they did.
On receipt of these documents, it became obvious to me that I had for several years been following most of this code except that I had not been documenting it, Also,1 realised that it would be impossible to follow all the code so I will always be at risk. This cannot be right.
Our own company code is as follows: we have issued our drivers with a folder of company instructions to keep in their cabs at all times in order to refer to it when something unusual occurs. Included in this folder are written instructions referring to persons attempting to gain entry into our trailers in order to gain illegal entry into the UK.
This was introduced long before the latest code of practice, introduced in April of this year. Our code, I believe, is a proper and adequate procedure to stop or deter any interference with our trailers as far as it is reasonably possible. We all know that it is impossible
to stop people gaining entry, but we have to try our best. This, we believe, we have done.
It would appear that our driver followed the code, but entry was gained. This could have been done by climbing through a hole made in the roof fabric or by cutting the sealing cord and supergluing it back together (there was a hole cut in the roof and also the cord had been cut and glued).
The main difference between our code and the code issued by the Home Office is that the Home Office requires the driver to log each stop after loading and before entry into the UK. If our driver had done this it would not have stopped what happened; it would merely have provided written confirmation of what our driver stated.
Press and television reports have always led me to believe that the driver was responsible for security and subsequent penalties. I have never agreed with this, but I certainly don't agree that companies should be held responsible and be given a statutory fine when it is impossible to protect ourselves against this.
This can only result in companies having to close through no fault of their own, which cannot be right. The UK justice system has gone mad.
I am at this time reluctantly considering a purely commercial decision to close my company after 37 years of hard work and honest graft through no fault of my own. This cannot be right either—or is this what our government wants? This is placing unacceptable levels of stress on myself and all my drivers.
I believe from evidence found in my trailer when we came to unload that these asylum seekers had been in the hands of the Belgian authorities, and I believe that if the Belgian authorities had acted properly these persons wouid not have been free to circulate and gain entry into the UK. It does not take a genius to realise the reasoning behind this: it is called passing the buck.
If no one else is responsible or can be apprehended, why pick on me? have done my best; can this is said of the Belgian authorities?
It is not impossible to obtain devices for detecting human presence without opening a trailer, so why is this form of detection not used at all ports?
The bottom line is this: these fines imposed an our industry will not stop illegal entry into the UK, so I must come to the conclusion that Jack Straw is trying to appear to be doing something, no matter how ineffectively,just to gain merit marks, but he has no consideration of my and my staffs livelihood.
We are being used as scapegoats because the government is not willing to implement sufficient methods to properly combat the problem. This flies in the face of my lifelong perception of British justice. It stinks.
Please answer these questions: in recent years, how many trucks entering the UK have been found to contain asylum seekers? How many of these drivers and owners have been summonsed? How many have been unsuccessfully prosecuted? Percentage-wise, not many I think; leading me to believe that our government must know that we are innocent victims in this, which makes these unacceptable penalties so grossly unfair that it is unbelievable that this could happen in the UK.
Can anybody tell me exactly what offence I have committed to warrant this penalty, because I do not know. Also, if the authorities believe that we are involved, as they must do, is this the standard and only penalty we can expect? Because if this is so, this is no deterrent to the guilty. They will simply charge accordingly and only the innocent will suffer.
By simple reasoning, it would be better for us to transport these people and charge 2,000 per head and protect our business from certain bankruptcy. But we know that we are not going to get involved and so fac,e a very bleak and uncertain future.
This should go before the court of human rights, with compensation for all victims, but who can afford to take it there? I certainly can't, but I also cannot afford to sit around and allow the government to bankrupt me.
Please consider my problem and dilemma—lwould be grateful for any suggestions, or indeed any help you can offer. Ken Taylor, Managing director, Ken Taylor Transport, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire.