APPENDIX 13
Memorandum by the British Ports Association
PHYSICAL CONTROLS AT UK PORTS OF ENTRY
1. BACKGROUND
The British Ports Association (BPA) represents
the interests of 86 port authorities located in all parts of the
UK, including the main ferry ports. Ports are characterised by
strong competitive pressures. All ports, whether trust, municipal
or private, exist as independent commercial entities receiving
no assistance from government funds. At the same time, they have
to absorb a high proportion of the costs of a range of border
controls of which Immigration and Customs controls constitute
the major part. The withdrawal of the duty free concession last
July has had a direct impact on the profitability of ferry operators;
those operators are now trying to recoup these losses by seeking
reductions in port charges. Although the creation of a single
market originally resulted in an easing of checks, especially
for customs, our experience since then is that border checks have
intensified in a way which seriously undermines the spirit and
intention of single market reforms and the need to maintain efficient
traffic flows. Although this submission concentrates on the problems
of the ferry sector and the combined effect of cargo and passenger
controls, many of the points are equally relevant to cargo only
ports.
2. CO-ORDINATION
OF EFFORT
AND RESOURCES
A particular concern, and one which we hope
the Committee will address in detail, is the extent to which the
various organisations exercising border controls seek efficiencies
through combining manpower and resources and saving costs. Although
individual controls can be modest in themselves, it is their cumulative
effect which can seriously erode the free movement of goods and
people across internal frontiers. Currently, border controls are
introduced in an uncoordinated way as a result of legislation
or policy which is the responsibility of different parts of government.
We believe that official controls and other agency functions should
be grouped under the coordination of a single lead body; this
would benefit ports and UK trade by making it easier to deal with
a single point of contact. Although following the SITPRO report
(see paragraph 4 below) an interdepartmental strategy group, chaired
jointly by the DTI and Customs at director level, was set up,
this seems to concern itself mainly with the control of trade
rather than with easing the burden. There is also a Border Agencies
Working Group to promote closer working between Customs, the Immigration
Service and the police, but ports have only been occasionally
consulted by this group. A further benefit of more cooperation
would be the opportunity to explore the potential to share facilities
and resources in a cost effective way. Government departments
and agencies should be able to demonstrate before implementation
that each control was necessary, proportionate and effective.
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 below offer brief summaries of some of
the main problems.
3. IMMIGRATION
CONTROLS
Immigration controls at UK ports continue to
represent a significant investment of manpower and resources.
The UK remains outside the Schengen Agreement and the government
has committed itself to maintaining immigration controls at borders.
We believe that controls for journeys within the EU should be
dismantled in line with the Schengen Agreement and the Amsterdam
Treaty. Only the UK and Ireland have chosen to remain outside
Schengen. In March 1999, a House of Lords Select Committee Report
on UK immigration controls came to the conclusion that "the
government failed to convince the Committee that systematic border
controls as currently practised for all arrivals in the UK whether
from the European Union or elsewhere is the most effective use
of resources to control illegal immigration or is focused on the
main sources of illegal immigration" (Para 48). The Committee
went on to support the principle of freedom of movement within
the EEA as a desirable objective.
In spite of these clear conclusions, the government
is now, through the measures contained in the Immigration and
Asylum Bill, seeking to transfer greater costs to the ports themselves.
The proposals would allow the Home Office to require ports to
provide a whole raft of facilities, ranging from accommodation,
through heating and cleaning to telephones and CCTV, all at no
cost. The Home Office would also be able to charge for those parts
of the service not agreed to be part of a "basic service".
Instead of a dismantling of these checks, ports are in fact facing
higher charges for controls which have a disruptive impact on
traffic flows. We believe the emphasis should be on intelligence
based targeting of passengers; such an approach is not reflected
in the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
4. HM CUSTOMS
A review of procedures at UK ports was carried
out by SITPRO (Simpler Trade Procedures Board) in 1997. This identified
the main problems and made a number of recommendations. In respect
of HM Customs three recommendations were made. These were firstly,
that the provisions regarding approval of ports, inland clearance
depots and wharves should be reviewed; secondly, that the scope
of decision making at a local collection level should be reconsidered
as this could have significant commercial implications; thirdly,
that a policy of moving away from controls at ports to audit based
controls at traders' premises should be the "cornerstone
of a national trade facilitation strategy". So far as we
are aware, patchy progress has been made on these three recommendations
and we would like to see Customs giving them serious attention.
A further recent example of the way in which
controls are created is the deployment of X-ray machines in ports
to detect tobacco. This was announced to us by Customs on 18 February
and we have already challenged Customs to provide information
on the extent to which all the options have been looked at before
seeking to use X-ray scanners exclusively at ports. Whilst we
appreciate that X-ray examinations might provide an easier method
of detection, any advantage could be undermined by the ability
to check a greater number of lorries creating an equivalent or
even greater delay. In line with our comment in paragraph 2 above,
Customs should be able to clearly state the extent to which any
control is "necessary, proportionate and effective".
A further factor is the activities of Special
Branch who have recently started to search unaccompanied freight
parked in the port. Sometimes their controls are exercised alongside
Customs but very often they operate independently.
5. PORT HEALTH
AUTHORITIES
Port health controls are carried out by local
government health officers on behalf of MAFF. They relate to two
areas, namely whether goods are fit for human consumption and
free from infectious disease. With a few exceptions, goods are
identified for inspection by manually scanning paper manifests,
inspecting documents and then informing the port, Customs and
sometimes the agent that the consignment has been stopped. The
SITPRO report concluded that the procedure was generally inefficient
and that the Port Health Authority, in conjunction with MAFF,
should develop a system which automatically pre-advised of consignments
which should be stopped for checking, enabling the importer to
transmit the information to the Port Health Authority. With the
implementation of new EU Directives on animal health control,
the requirements for checks have increased since 1997. We believe
that the port health procedures should be integrated with Customs
and other agencies so that those affected by these checks should
not have to lodge information with the Port Health Authority separately.
6. VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
A further example of the vulnerability of ports
to checking has occurred with the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI). Council
Regulation 4060/89 makes it clear that vehicle inspections are
performed at frontiers "solely as part of normal control
procedures applied in a non discriminatory fashion throughout
the territory of EU member states". Even so, ports have been
under pressure for use as locations of intensive vehicle inspection
activity. Indeed, we note that in the recommendations of the Commission
for Integrated Transport on the general use of 44 tonne lorries,
there is a recommendation that vehicle inspection at ports be
increased. If this were to be adopted as a policy by government
we would strongly resist it.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The examples provided above are not exhaustive.
We believe that there is a need to coordinate checks at ports
firstly, by combining resources as fully as possible and secondly,
by having a means within government of assessing the effect of
each new control and its overall impact. Apart from the commercial
advantages this would produce to ports and the freight industry,
it should also lead to better containment of costs on the part
of those organisations and agencies involved.
7 April 2000
|
