BYELAWS OF THE CONCESSIONAIRES (Hansard, 21 July 1987)

§ Mr. David Mitchell
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 64.

§ Mr. Mitchell
The amendments are aimed at facilitating the enforcement of the concessionaires bylaws particularly those bearing on safety.

§ Mr. Snape
I shall put two points to the Minister. Will he confirm that the amendment will have no adverse impact on clause 19(1)(f) which states: regulating the use or conveyance of vehicles and prohibiting or regulating the conveyance of goods other than vehicles, in particular dangerous goods;"? The Minister will be aware that in clause 18 the concessionaires are not common carriers.
I have two reasons for making these points. The Minister will be aware of the strong concern felt by all of us including those who support the project about safety in the tunnel system. He will be aware of the concern, much of which was inspired by competitors in the cross-Channel business, and concern expressed by many witnesses before the Select Committee about safety and the suggested conveyance of dangerous goods through the tunnel system.
The Minister will confirm that dangerous goods are prohibited. Will he comment on the fact that, despite the fact such conveyance is prohibited under the terms of clause 19 and the amendment, at the moment one cross-Channel ferry company persists in showing a video of a train fire that took place in the Summit tunnel on the former Lancashire and Yorkshire railway system a few years ago. Will the Minister confirm that the showing of such a video is a deliberate distortion of the fact that the fire in that tunnel was caused by the collapse of the wheel system on a petrol tanker? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that neither that type of tanker nor any other will be permitted to travel through the tunnel system?
I am sure that the Minister is aware that this propaganda is still being shown on cross-Channel ferries, supposedly on safety grounds. I should have thought that, given that later this week we are to hear about the report on the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, on good taste grounds alone such a video would not be shown to passengers crossing the Channel. I do not know whether the Minister agrees that to expect good taste from Sealink would be the equivalent of expecting culture from 279 Hollywood. We shall not get any good taste. For the benefit of those using cross-channel ferries, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, under the terms of these amendments, that video is deliberately misleading and is a scurrilous attempt to play unreasonably on people's fears and that these amendments and this clause specifically preclude the carriage of dangerous goods through the tunnel system?

§ Mr. David Mitchell
These amendments are aimed at facilitating the enforcement of the concessionaires byelaws, particularly bearing in mind safety. They do not impinge directly on the question of goods to be carried. It is for the concessionaire to propose appropriate measures for the prohibition or control of dangerous goods in the tunnel system. Their proposals will be considered by the Inter-governmental Commission. The commission will be advised by the safety authority which has recently established the dangerous goods working group to prepare its position on the transport of dangerous goods through the tunnel in the light of existing national and international requirement and practice. We must wait for that report before we have a definitive list of prohibited goods. I assure the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the circumstances which he has described — displaying a film of what happened in the Summit tunnel—have no relevance to the position in terms of the Channel tunnel. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having taken this opportunity to expose what I imagine is a deliberate attempt to mislead people.