• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

Illegal immigrants

ILLEGAL immigrants are causing concern in official circles in Whitehall. Foreign and Commonwealth nationals slip ashore at night in Kent and a few hours later are lost in the anonymity of our great cities; occasionally, they are apprehended and returned to their native land.

These are not the only illegal immigrants in Britain today; not for these others the surreptitious entry; they come in boldly, rolling off the ferries, completing customs and immigration formalities.

With a few exceptions, foreign vehicles entering this country must be covered by a carrier's licence and a permit. The licence can be simply obtained on a short-term basis from the Metropolitan traffic area office of the Ministry of Transport, the permit from the MoT office in Newcastle.

Continental operators who enter Britain without proper documentation are breaking the law but are unlikely to be caught. And when they are, they have nothing to lose!

While each driver must go through immigration procedure and have both his personal effects and his load cleared by customs, no one wants to see his carrier's licence, or permit. No one is responsible for ensuring that he has permission to land his vehicle.

The Ministry of Transport knows vehicles are slipping in without authority; it depends solely on the efforts of the police and its enforcement officers at spot checks to apprehend the offender—by which time he is already ashore, What can be done? Immigration officers could clear the entry documentation for both man and machine, but I think this is too late a stage as by then the driver and his vehicle are on board ship.

Perhaps the ship's officer could be asked to check the documents before the vehicle is allowed on board. This would leave the problem where it belongs—back at the port of exit.

While they are in Great Britain foreign drivers are bound to conduct themselves according to our laws: they must not overload their vehicles; they must not exceed our statutory hours of work; they must not pick up goods in Britain for delivery in this country or any country other than their own.

Many other laws are binding on these men, but the foregoing are the most easily broken. Roadside checks have revealed overloaded vehicles, drivers have been found working well beyond the limit and not keeping records of hours and to be delivering goods picked up within Great Britain.

When such a case comes to light, the enforcement branch of the MoT traffic area which has uncovered the offence reports it to MoT headquarters in London. The Ministry then advises the culprit's own Ministry for action and if the offence is blatant or has been committed persistently the MoT may even ask that the culprit shall not be issued with another permit.

However, this would not necessarily stop the haulier coming in, as he can manage this very simply without a permit. As he has no licence which can be withdrawn, how can he be punished? Perhaps if we were to impound their vehicles they would be disinclined to take such chances.

Our own MoT wants the permit system abolished altogether. This seems to me to be the sensible approach to the problem but it is one which is unacceptable on the Continent. It seems that just as De Gaulle appeared to be afraid that we would steal the limelight in the Common Market, so the permit-minded governments in Germany and Italy are afraid that we will cream off too much of their traffic to Britain. Such is the price of our efficiency.

It would be wrong to create the impression that all Continental operators are "crooked". As some may be breaking our law through ignorance, they must be educated. And this is just what Hungarocamion, the Hungarian State transport group, does. Its drivers attend a technical college and not only do they understand the technicalities of their vehicle and operation but also the language of the country which they are to work in. Ministry men tell me that when other foreign vehicles or papers are being examined, the driver seldom understands English. Obviously, when questions are not understood, answers are impossible. What the driver does seem to understand is the injunction—"All right, on you go."

Containers loaded on the Continent are another cause of concern, particularly in East Anglia, which, many years ago, I heard referrred to as the "hauliers' graveyard". Seasonal traffic of fish and agricultural produce was the pattern. Then came containers, North Sea traffic, ferry traffic from Holland into Felixstowe. There was a boom. Hauliers living on the edge of bankruptcy were pulled back from the brink. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company saved the day.

Felixstowe paradox Over the past decade, Felixstowe has grown until today it is second only to Europoort in container handling in Europe. During the third quarter of this year, it handled 26,104 containers, and this on onetenth of the land occupied by its nearest rival, Antwerp.

Felixstowe is developing fast and soon it will occupy a further 73 acres behind the existing terminal. More ships, more trailers, more containers mean more business for the haulage contractors. The growth of Felixstowe should be welcomed by the hauliers —but it is not.

Paradoxically, the very development of the port which brought the haulier affluence is the source of danger. The operators in the Eastern traffic area are becoming victims of Felixstowe's growth and the illegal operation of some of the port's customers.

Containers and semi-trailers loaded in Europe are the main trouble. They are frequently overloaded and therefore either exceed the gross plated weight of the vehicle or have the weight so disposed that axle weights are exceeded. Believe me, these are not isolated occurrences but happen regularly. The East Anglian operators are concerned about the matter. Neither are the operators involved "here today and gone tomorrow" pirates but companies like Reece, Peter Miller (Haulage) Ltd., W. Carter (Haulage) Ltd., Page Bros. and many others.

A recent check at Felixstowe docks recorded 8,900 vehicle movements in 24 hours; according to the dock company's own figures there were approximately 300 containers passing through every 24 hours. And as there is only one weighbridge at Felixstowe docks, it is hardly surprising that operators are being booked for overloading.

Not only are the weighing facilities totally inadequate, but so are the others available to operators. If the prosecutions for overloading continue at the present level, many of the East Anglian operators will be lucky to get an operator's licence. Once having got one they will find it hard to keep. Revocation, curtailment and suspension will loom large on their horizons. The hauliers' tombstones will again appear in East Anglia.

One operator, Mr. L. Carter of W. Carter of Woodbridge told me: "I have been convicted of overloading four times recently. I don't want to be a lawbreaker; outside forces have made it so."

Felixstowe hauliers have come to disbelieve a ship's manifest when it shows the container weight Page Bros. recently picked up a container which the manifest recorded as 9,060 kilos (8.9 tons); it was in fact 19,060 kilos (18.8 tons). Mr. Weeden, Page's traffic manager, had sent along a Leyland Comet (carrying capacity 9 tons) to move the load, and the driver was unaware of the load's real weight until he had loaded it.

More recently, a Carter vehicle picked up a load recorded as 21 tons which, in fact, weighed 29 tons. One of Miller's vehicles was found to be lOcwt overweight on one axle with the result that it was booked by the MoT and a £25 fine imposed. These are not isolated cases, and the operators are so worried that they are now refusing to move the overweight traffic except to their own yards. Even this action leaves them open to prosecution.

Once they are safely in the yard, it is their practice to phone to the agent at Felixstowe and explain the position. This is followed by the agent requesting the operator to hold on to the box for a few days "and charge us demurrage"—£3 per day for a trailer.

When, two or three days later, the request is made to take the container back to the dock the law is broken again. The container is then shipped by Freightliner to the terminal nearest to its ultimate destination. An unsuspecting haulier 200 or 300 miles from Felixstowe is thus handed the problem.

Troubled waters Operators in the Felixstowe area have recently formed a Port Users' Association and if their mood is any guide, Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company is heading for troubled waters.

It seems for the moment, however, that the PUA has failed to make much impact on the company. When I interviewed two officials they were amazed at any suggestion that the port was lacking in facilities, or that they were ill-informed about the dangerous situation in which they were placing hauliers. I formed the impression they were satisfied that there was no obligation on the Dock Board to protect or assist the operators.

When a haulier ascertained that a container was overweight, he could request the port authority to de-van the goods and spread the load over two vehicles, I was told. The Authority would assist "but it might take all of two weeks to get the labour," they said. This could take place only if the load had been cleared by customs. When customs clearance had to be obtained it involved another week.

In the meantime, the semi-trailer, tied up at a rate of £3 per day, is not earning real money. The haulier's customer and the consignee are, pressing for delivery. The haulier, the central figure, comes out of the deal losing both his reputation and his profit. In the face of this unsatisfactory situation operators have in the past—quite improperly—moved overweight vehicles, often as far as Bristol, Glasgow or Liverpool.

It has happened that an Eastern area enforcement officer has check-weighed an overweight vehicle and, after noting the circumstances, has allowed it to proceed. Overweight, it can then travel through three, four or five other traffic areas at the risk of being check-weighed in each.

The Felixstowe operators are calling a halt to such illegal operations. Unless something is done and soon, Felixstowe may find itself bogged down with containers.

In the new 70-acre development, perhaps the port will allocate a holding area for overweights and de-vanning sheds. Who should pay? I say the agents—they are the people who act for the Continentals. Certainly, the operator should not meet the cost.

Change the rules The MoT should also take a hand, Roadside checks like radar speed cheeks cannot stop an offence, but merely detect an offender. "Let the Ministry start to put some weight on the ports for better weighbridge facilities", was a suggestion made to me. However, I understand that this is beyond the power of the Ministry.

It seems to me that our trouble is that we are still playing the game by the old rules. The game has changed, the rules must change. We cannot have Europeans playing ducks and drakes with legislation, nor can we allow them to jeopardize the operators' licences of our hauliers by shipping overweight containers. It solves nothing for the MoT to set up check-points on the roads leading from ports. It would be much more sensible to tackle the problem at source.

What, then, do the port hauliers want? In simple terms—protection. To be precise they are asking for de-vanning facilities and immediate attention. They want adequate weighbridge facilities both for gross weights and axle weights. They suggest that the MoT should try to help them by calling for a joint discussion between the port authorities, agents, hauliers and Continental operators' associations.

The Ministry of Transport is naturally concerned that diplomatic relations should not be disturbed because of some trivial traffic offence. The Felixstowe operators are concerned that their future should not be jeopardized because the Ministry is not taking a sufficiently strong line.

With the cloSure of Tilbury as an OCL base (CM November 28) Felixstowe will almost certainly be called on to handle increased traffic. The containers destined for Great Britain will pass through Antwerp and then into this country through the East Anglian port. The port's resources, I was told, are already strained. If this is so, how can it be expected to cope efficiently with increased cargo unless its facilities are improved?