Risk of 'exposure to hazardous substances' at East Midlands Airport
A damning new report has been published
Last updated 4th Mar 2024
Members of the public risk being exposed to hazardous substances due to failings in parcel checks by the country’s Border Force at East Midlands Airport (EMA), a damning report has revealed.
Border and immigration inspectors carried out a review of controls on “fast parcel” – packages brought in by companies such as FedEx, UPS – procedures in the Midlands between May and July last year.
In the Midlands, there are Border Force fast parcel teams at Birmingham Airport and in Coventry, as well as at EMA, in Castle Donington, but EMA is the biggest centre for such parcels, receiving around 90 per cent of all that come into the UK.
The teams make sure hazardous, controlled or banned substances are not entering the country.
Inspectors raised a number of concerns about the way fast parcel controls were being carried out across the teams at the time of their visit.
These included members of the already short-staffed teams being redeployed to other duties, including immigration checks, and broken and outdated technologies being used.
The report on Border Force fast parcel operations in the Midlands detailed potential risks to members of the public which arose through the handling and transportation of parcels which were found to contain “prohibited or restricted goods”.
Once such goods were found, the report stated, examination of the parcel was stopped, even if the package had not been fully searched,
The parcel was then transported in an “official vehicle” to a Border Force office, it added. In the case of EMA, this required the goods to go through airport security being used by the public.
The parcels could also travel along public roads and other passenger areas of the airports, according to the report.
Inspectors said that not examining every parcel fully “could be considered as negligent of the potential health and safety risks, as officers may be unwittingly transporting hazardous articles on public roads and into the secure zone of international airports due to a failure to establish the contents of a consignment before transport”.
Border Force operations are a Government responsibility and not the responsibility of EMA management.
Some parcels, considered to be lower priority but still identified for checks, only received “cursory glances”, officers admitted to inspectors. Inspectors said they were “concerned that this inconsistent approach to searching, which was overtly accepted by operational managers, may lead to prohibited and restricted goods being missed”.
Senior managers in the Midlands also criticised the training given to new recruits, saying it was too short and did not come with a pass/fail test to check competency. Some new staff members also experienced delays in getting that training, with one group of new recruits in post for eight months without access to a course, the report added.
The quality of the equipment was also raised as an issue by the inspection team. At EMA, inspectors said they “did not see a single successful use of detection equipment, beyond the use of drug field tests, to screen a fast parcel or either positively or negatively identify a questioned substance”.
This was because equipment “was either broken, not available, or untrusted”. A senior Border Force manager later told the watchdog they believed equipment to be “poor across the organisation”.
The only X-ray machine in EMA set aside for Border Force’s sole use was in the passenger customs channels in the main airport terminal. This was described as being “remote” from the operator sheds used by the team and meant parcels again had to be taken through airport security to the main terminal. The inspectors considered this to be “inefficient”.
It was also broken at the time of the inspection and there was “no defined timescale for repair or replacement”.
One manager told inspectors: “I am frustrated. We haven’t had a working X-ray for nine months. The machine is 23 years old, and the parts are obsolete.”
Instead, inspectors watched officers dismantle an item using tools, which “took considerable time” and risked damage to the item.
If they had damaged it and it was found to be border control compliant, the cost of then having to replace it fell on the taxpayer.
The report added it was “clear” officers had “an inherent mistrust of the accuracy and viability” of some of their trace detection equipment, used to detect substances which could include narcotics or explosives.
At EMA, that equipment was also broken, with officers saying they understood that that was because it had been stored inappropriately and had not had the necessary daily maintenance.
The Home Office told the Press Association it acknowledged the fast parcel operation was “complex and strong”.
A spokesperson added: “We acknowledge that airport environments are complicated and sometimes factors beyond our immediate control can impact our processes, but our aim is to provide a professional and adaptable service which protects the public by providing a secure border, whilst facilitating legitimate travel and trade.”