HC Deb 21 July 1987 vol 120 cc260-71

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 9, line 36, at end insert— (aa) for the transfer to, and the vesting by virtue of the order in, any person or persons specified in the order (referred to below in this section as the transferee), on such terms (if any) as may be provided by the order—

  1. (i) on any substitution of Concessionaires under the Concession or on the expiry or termination of the Concession, of the interest of the former Concessionaires in all movable property and intellectual property rights necessary for the construction or operation of the tunnel system;
  2. (ii) on any such substitution, of all rights and liabilities of the former Concessionaires under the Concession or any Concession lease; and
  3. (iii) on any such substitution which takes place in such circumstances as may be specified in the order, of liabilities of the former Concessionaires (other than liabilities within sub-paragraph (ii) above) of such description as may be so specified;
and for securing effective possession or control by the transferee of any movable property or rights in which any interest transferred by the order subsists;

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 amendments Nos. 11 to 19, 20, amendment (a) and 21 to 28.

Mr. Mitchell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) had tabled an amendment to Lords amendment No. 20. Am I wrong?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The position is that that is not an amendment to the amendment that we are discussing. It is taken with a series of other Lords amendments. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will be perfectly free to speak to his amendment, but he will not be called to move it at this stage. The debate will take place on Lords amendment No. 10, but it will be appropriate to discuss the other amendments which I read out. They were Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 19, 20 plus amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, and amendments 21 to 28. That is the group that we are now discussing.

Mr. Mitchell

All the amendments are related to the Secretary of State's order-making powers under clause 11. The amendments may appear formidable but they involve only one significant policy change. The majority are essentially technical and drafting improvements.

Mr. Stuart Holland (Vauxhall)

I would like the House to consider the amendment that is in my name, namely: Line 5, leave out from 'Britain' to 'or' in line 7. The amendment will make it possible for there to be controls on board trains engaged in international services. It is important that we should consider the amendment and that the Minister should respond to it. There will be considerable restraints on the use of Waterloo as a Channel tunnel terminus. In the answer to a parliamentary question that I put to the Minister on 19 January, he stated: British Rail estimates that about 70 per cent. of the passengers using its through Channel tunnel rail services will pass through the proposed Waterloo terminal."—[Official Report, 19 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 381.] The Minister has indicated in other answers that he has given to me that there would be Customs and Excise facilities at Waterloo and not on the trains. I strongly recommend that he reconsiders that for a range of reasons.

One reason is the capacity constraints on Waterloo station. In the publicity that British Rail uses concerning the capacity and ability of Waterloo to absorb additional traffic, publicity that it has displayed for passengers at Waterloo—and the Minister knows of my interest—it was implied that the current number of weekday passengers using Waterloo was 180,000. That is well below the fullest capacity of the station at any previous date since the war. The highest was between 1970 and 1971 when it was just over 200,000. In a parliamentary answer that the Minister gave me on Monday, he said: Eurotunnel's estimates of Channel tunnel traffic through rail passenger traffic do not distinguish between Waterloo and other UK locations. Such United Kingdom locations are the subject of the Lords amendment that we are considering. He further stated: British Rail's consultants, who concluded that the road and underground systems would be able to accommodate the Channel tunnel traffic at Waterloo, based their assessment on 50,000 extra day-time passengers in 1993 rising to 59,000 in 2003."—[Official Report, 20 July 1987]. However, information given to me by a Mr. Nick Alexander of British Rail, who is responsible for evaluating the feasible traffic that will be generated, gives different results. British Rail has estimated that the weekday passengers — which term I have learnt from Mr. Nick Alexander means peak August Saturday—in the year 2003 will be some 241,000. However, Eurotunnel, which is concerned to support its flotation and give the impression that the Channel tunnel project will be a great commercial success and will carry a great many passengers, gives a higher figure of 262,000 passengers in the year 2003.

The additional traffic generated is way over the figures that the Minister has suggested in a parliamentary answer that he has just given me. It will be an extra 61,000 passengers per day instead of the 50,000 in the answer he gave on Monday, according to Mr. Nick Alexander's figures. It will be another 82,000 passengers rather than the 59,000 in the year 2003. This has considerable implications for the exclusive use of Waterloo as a Channel tunnel terminal and for Customs and Excise being located there. The addition of 59,000 passengers would give a total weekday flow in August of 239,000, or 20 per cent. above the previous peak use of Waterloo station at any time since the war. It will be up to 40 per cent. higher if 30 trains per day were used rather than 20 trains per day. This relates to signalling, because if the lines are resignalled, as was maintained by Mr. Southgate of British Rail, there could be 30 trains per day rather than 20 trains per day.

7.15 pm

I will not labour the point on those figures as I appreciate that they are not that easy to grasp when stated in abstract. However, when modifying the diagram that British Rail has provided on weekday passengers at Waterloo it is quite clear that the previous peak use on this line is around some 200,000 passengers. It simply shoots off the diagram when we take the higher figures estimated by British Rail and Eurotunnel.

This very much strengthens the case for not having a unique Customs and Excise terminal in London for passengers arriving in London. It strengthens the case for on-train Customs and Excise inspection. That is what we understand will be the case in France and Belgium. I asked the Minister earlier why we should have a flagship terminal at Waterloo if the French do not have one at Gare du Nord. What is the point of having such a terminal when it will constitute a bottleneck for traffic if there is not on-train inspection?

I ask the Minister to think again, because the real advantage of a rail link versus an air link arises if there is on-train inspection. That is what will make travel time by rail competitive overall with travel by air, when passengers can avoid the inconvenience of having to travel to Heathrow or to Gatwick to go through a Customs check there and so forth.

Many of us have probably taken a train from Brussels to Paris or to some similar point in our time and know that it is a much more convenient way to travel. Although the overall rail length of the trip from Londor to Paris or Brussels might be longer than the total travel time by going to an airport and catching a plane, the commercial viability of the project could depend on there being on train inspection for Customs and Excise. Lords amendment 20 says: passengers carried on a train engaged on an international service on a journey beginning or intended to end at a place in Great Britain other than London or Cheriton, Folkestone or any place between those places The whole substance of the clause and of subsections (2) and (3) is to provide facilities for such on-train inspection. It strengthens the case for having on-train inspection rather than a flagship facility at Waterloo.

We have come a long way with the Bill. When we first started to argue the case for dispersal, it was hardly admitted at all. Since then, the Minister has taken the case on board, and British Rail, to a lesser extent, has also taken it on board. They have made some evaluation—however half-hearted—of the case for dispersal of traffic which, therefore, will not have to go through London. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make a point or two on social and traffic congestion costs from increased traffic generated at Waterloo. The congestion caused by a single terminal facility for Channel tunnel traffic at Waterloo will be considerable.

However disputed British Rail's figures may have been at various times, we are talking about traffic going through Waterloo that will be equivalent to the total traffic of Gatwick airport. If the scheme succeeds, we shall be talking about traffic that is equivalent to a jumbo jet arriving or leaving Waterloo every three and a half minutes. It clearly is evident that if people can leave trains—

Mr. Mitchell

indicated dissent

Mr. Holland

The Minister shakes his head, but it is precisely the type of point on which we still need clarification. There is a vast disparity between, the figures that have been given by Eurotunnel and British Rail about how many people will use Waterloo. The matter is not at all clear. For example, if lines are resignalled, as has been made plain by Mr. Southgate of British Rail, the number of trains will increase by 50 per cent.

I urge the Minster to reconsider the matter and consider accepting my amendment. It will facilitate the viability of the project, reduce travelling time for those who use the Channel fixed-link facility and therefore reduce the potential bottleneck at Waterloo. That will be to the Minister's and Eurotunnel's advantage.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover)

As has been said, the clause and the amendment to it affect the clearance of Customs procedures on trains. I am particularly concerned about the matter because, last December, I had a meeting with trade unions at the port of Dover. It was apparent to me that many trade unionists felt that the delays that are caused in Dover are related to Customs and Excise and that it clearly is not the men who work for Customs and Escise who are at fault but, perhaps, the systems and procedures that they are required to follow. The systems and procedures are somewhat traditional and, dare I suggest, as old as the original Commissioners would be if they were alive today. Therefore, I pay tribute to the way in which many Customs officers have to wrestle with procedures in Dover and the fact that so many drug smugglers are caught.

What will happen to the tunnel if the amendment is carried? On-board clearances will give undue preference to the tunnel if such speedy facilities are not available to the port and ferries. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 seems considerably to handicap ferries. I recently had reports that, in France and Belgium, ferry operators are unable to check passports and are unable to check that proper visas for entry to the United Kingdom exist. Consequently, there have been massive fines. In the past couple of months, there have been fines amounting to about £200,000 since the Act has been in operation.

I question the effect of the clause and whether Eurotunnel or concessionaires will enjoy any benefits as a result of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will cover that point in his closing remarks. Certainly, it will be wrong and unfair to the port and ferries for special immigration and Customs clearances to be conducted unless the port of Dover has similar procedures. Surely that is only fair to ferries.

Mr. Snape

The amendment is significant, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reply in detail. There is confusion about the number of people who will use the terminal at Waterloo once the Channel tunnel scheme is completed. Of course, part of the confusion arose from British Rail's self-inflicted wounds. It originally published an estimate of the number of passengers who will use the terminal in 2003. It said that the estimate will not reach the number of passengers who used Waterloo in the 1960s. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will tell me if I have that date wrong. The figures were widely publicised and appeared in the exhibition.

Mr. Holland

It was 1993 and 1971.

Mr. Snape

My hon. Friend reminds me that it was 1993 and 1971, for which I am grateful.

The figures appeared in the exhibition that British Rail management subsequently staged at Waterloo station. They had to take them away and confess that, somehow, they managed to count Windsor line passengers twice. It is not for me to defend some of the more eccentric decisions that British Rail managment makes. Indeed, I pride myself on my ability to criticise such decisions. Such confusion does not help its case, or the amendments. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clear up the matter by giving some accurate estimates of the likely number of passengers who will pass through the terminal once the project gets under way.

My hon. Friend talked about the proposed resignalling of the area. He will be aware—no doubt the Minister will tell us — that approval for such a proposal has already been granted. I think I am right in saying that a new signal box will be erected near Surbiton to control the Waterloo station area and a considerable number of route miles also. That, plus the provision of the flyovers and the extra tracks within Waterloo station—the new terminal — will take care of any projected increase in traffic resulting from the scheme. Again, the Minister is the man who has such material at his fingertips and a whole battery of experts to tell him when he has not, so I have no doubt that he will be able to clarify that point.

I was intrigued by the words of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). He paid tribute to the Customs officers at Dover. It is remarkable listening to hon. Members pay tribute to trade unionists. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I am advised that it was the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). It is remarkable that Conservative Members are paying public tribute to trade unionists. A couple of weeks ago, when there was an industrial dispute at Dover, they were treading on each other's heads to get into the Table Office to table early-day motions deploring those disputes and attacking the unions for being involved in them.

It just goes to show that there is nothing like a fairly marginal seat to make the advantages of trade unionism even more apparent to Conservative Members than they are to us. [Interruption.] It is a temporary phase. It illustrates the point even better. Regardless of one's majority, if they are one's constituents, one seeks to defend their right to industrial action, although, presumably, being a Conservative Member, he will vote to restrict everybody else's rights in due course when the latest bout of anti-union legislation appears.

Mr. Holland

rose—

Mr. Snape

I hope that my hon. Friend will not take me down that track, if I may use the industrial metaphor. We might be in trouble with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he does.

Mr. Holland

I wish to take up a point regarding signalling and the amount of traffic that may be generated. From Mr. Southgate I have gleaned that resignalling might go ahead. I am not sure whether that refers to what has already been done or to more extensive resignalling. Traffic estimates have not publicly been modified by British Rail. After all, senior management concerned with the project says that, because of resignalling, there could be up to a 50 per cent. increase in the number of trains. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is incumbent on the Minister to take that fact into account and to make plain to the House what the implications will be.

Mr. Snape

I can tell my hon. Friend, because I take an interest in such matters, that the present signalling technology in and around Waterloo dates from the 1930s.

I can assure him that it is much more interesting than the future, modernistic push-button stuff, but nevertheless, it is soon to be removed. I have no doubt that the Minister will give the figures on the modernistic push-button stuff to which I have referred to the nearest tail lamp or to the nearest electrical multiple unit. Any resignalling scheme would considerably increase capacity in or around Waterloo. I am sure that we shall hear the exact figures from the Minister.

7.30 pm

I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Dover — I have got his constituency right on this occasion. He made a constituency plea with a vengeance in saying that if trains are to have on-board Customs, ships must have them also. I advise the hon. Gentleman that there is a slight difference between those modes of transport. Of course it is permissible for hon. Members of all parties to make pleas of special constituency interest — we all do it — but it is fascinating to hear a Conservative Member argue against a more effective deployment of staff. Although on-train Customs clearance is vital in the opinion of many of us, it cashes in on the inherent flexibility and advantage of the through trains between, for example, Paris and Brussels, and Manchester or even Birmingham. To say that because ships cannot have such clearance, trains should not either, is the type of restrictive practice that might have been greeted by applause from Peter Sellers in his parody of a shop steward, Fred Kite, in the 1950s.

Again it is surprising, although understandable because it is a specific constituency plea, to hear a Conservative Member argue for such an equally inefficient use of resources simply because his own constituency might somehow be disadvantaged as the through trains from Paris to Birmingham thunder underneath Dover, rather than everybody, buckets, spades, suitcases and mothers-in-law, being tipped out, so that those of his constituents who happen to be trade unionists can rifle through their baggage.

Mr. David Shaw

rose—

Mr. Snape

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a minute; I have not finished with him yet. I am not quite sure how he will explain to his own divisional association his deviation from the habits and Customs of the Conservative party. However, I shall give him the opportunity now.

Mr. Shaw

With deference and respect to the hon. Gentleman, I advise him that my trade unionists in Dover are concerned about the sound Conservative principle of fair competition.

Mr. Snape

I do not see anything especially fair or competitive in denying a new mode of transport the flexibility that would be to its advantage. The Conservative party used to stand for competition but those days are now gone. To deny that flexibility to the new mode of travel does not seem an inherently Conservative virtue. However, I have always found virtue to be considerably lacking in the Conservative party. I hope that the Minister will give us more details about the two issues that have already been raised.

Lords amendment No. 20 is welcome so far as it goes. We are extremely grateful because it at least amplifies and illustrates the amount of concern that is felt in both Houses and across party lines that on-train Customs facilities should be provided. Like my hon Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), I car not see any good reason why on-train Customs facilities should not be provided on trains travelling to and from London on certain trains, perhaps at specific times of the day or night. I was not aware of the position in France and am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, who is much better travelled than I, for pointing out the position on the other side of the Channel. Perhaps I may appeal to the hon. Member for Dover on grounds of pure British chauvinism, which normally appeals enormously to Conservative Members. I hope that the Minister will not tell the House that the French can do it but that we cannot.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

This amendment is to be welcomed, although I seek clarification on the issue which the hon. Member for West Bromwich. East, (Mr. Snape) cavalierly brushed over, which is whether equal rights on Customs clearance will apply to all cross-channel operators. The Minister needs to be asked some questions about that. It is highly welcome that we have now introduced into this country the principle of on-train Customs clearance, which will make for a faster and better service. However, it should not be welcomed if it is to be an exclusive privilege for Eurotunnel. As I understand it, clause 11 envisages that operators other than Eurotunnel will be able to organise on-train Customs clearance. However, we should probe the Minister's thinking and I should like to ask him some specific questions.

First, and in general terms, to what extent has he already sought the co-operation of and had consultations with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise about the drafting of the clauses, and their consenting arrangements for them? My experience of the Customs service is that one can often get a Customs officer down to the water, but one cannot necessarily make him clear the baggage at the speed at which most people would like to see it cleared. Customs officers are sometimes a reluctant service when it conies to innovation. Therefore, I press the Minister to cell us how far he has got in ensuring that Customs officers are not only willing but enthusiastic about the new arrangements.

Secondly, I ask the Minister for guidance as to what is likely to happen should, for example, the Sally Line, which operates from Ramsgate in my constituency, wish to seek boat trains with on-train controls under clause 11. To a large extent the decision on that seems to be left to the Minister. On what criteria will the Minister decide? Under the clause he clearly has it in mind to give his permission for Eurotunnel trains. Indeed, that is why this clause is included in the Bill. However, ordinary boat trains, using ordinary British Rail rolling stock, travel to the ports every day. Is there any physical or engineering reason why those trains cannot have on-train Customs control?

Mr. Snape

It is not for me to answer the Minister's question for him. However, I have a pretty good idea that he may give a similar reply, except that his will be more lucid than mine. Would it not be a little stupid to have on-train Customs on boat trains going to Ramsgate when, to requote my own words, husbands, fathers, mothers, kids, buckets, spades, suitcases and mothers-in-law will be detrained at Ramsgate and embark on a boat prior to sailing across the Channel? Would that not make more sense in the case of a through journey from Paris to Birmingham, than for a comparatively small journey, which must be broken, from London to Paris, via Ramsgate, to wherever the Sally Line decamps its passengers on the other side of the Channel?

Mr. Aitken

It is not for the first time that I feel that the hon. Gentleman has something against Ramsgate.

Mr. Snape

It is the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).

Mr. Aitken

There is no need to be personal. I do my best for Ramsgate and for its future Customs controls.

I simply want to know the criteria on which the Minister will decide when a request comes in for an international service on ordinary trains. Will he be willing to grant his permission in principle? Is it a question of the physical arrangements? What are the general criteria?

I notice that individual Customs officers seem to have a wide power of decision-making. If I have understood it correctly, a Customs officer may suddenly decide that he will not allow a particular train to be cleared on an on-train basis. The discretion of the Customs officer seems to be quite wide. Under subsection (3)(a), if the train is very crowded, for example, can a Customs officer say, "Sorry, I am not clearing that one today"? I seek clarification as to how extensive the individual decision-making powers of Customs officers are. If I have read the clause correctly, a Customs officer can simply say, "Things are difficult on this train. I will not clear it." That would be somewhat disadvantageous to those who got on the train believing that they would have a thorough immigration Customs clearance during their journey.

I note that clause 11(4) states that an order under section 11 of the proposed Act can impose charges on the operator. I find that rather worrying because Eurotunnel is paying for its own policing arrangements. I think there is something unsatisfactory about a private company paying for the police and therefore deciding how many police will be around at the Channel tunnel terminal. I also believe it unsatisfactory that Eurotunnel or any other cross-channel operator can decide on how many Customs officers there will be on offer on a train because they are paying the bill. We should have a national service, whether the police or Customs, operating according to national criteria and standards. In that case the Government should lay down those standards and pay for them. However, if standards can be varied because the man who pays the piper chooses the tune, an extremely different quality of Customs service could be provided on the trains.

With those reservations—which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will ease with his answers—I give this clause a general welcome, providing, of course, that we stick to the line that there is fair competition for all cross-channel operators and not a special provision for Eurotunnel.

Mr. David Mitchell

The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) would require the Government to provide Customs and immigration controls on board any train passing through the tunnel if that was wanted by the operator. That would affect shuttle trains as well as through trains.

Clearly, controls on board the shuttle trains are not a practical proposition. In any case, Eurotunnel does not want such controls because the controls are to be juxtaposed at the point of departure at the tunnel terminals.

Presumably the hon. Member for Vauxhall is concerned about the trains at Waterloo. However, if that is the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's amendment I must say that it is defective. In effect, the hon. Member for Vauxhall has asked why controls cannot be provided on trains to Waterloo if Customs and immigration controls can be provided on trains beyond London. The two situations are different.

The Government accept that on-train controls are probably essential to the commercial viability of services bound for places beyond London. Therefore, although on-train controls are estimated to require half as many Customs officers again as are required for conventional static controls, the Government are prepared to accept the extra call on the manpower resources implicit in clause 12. However, the Government reserve the right to charge British Rail for those extra resources. The conditions in subsection (2) of clause 12 must also be satisfied. In part that answers my hon. Friend the member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), to whose case I shall return.

When considering trains to Waterloo, the circumstances are considerably different. If the hon. Member for Vauxhall reflects for a moment he will realise that what we need to do is to ensure that people have as agreeable, fast and efficient a means of getting from one capital city to another as possible. The best way to achieve that is to ensure that people have an agreeable journey.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall should envisage the likely effect of on-train controls. Suppose the hon. Member for Vauxhall goes to Paris for a business meeting. He gets into the train at Waterloo, which is much less inconvenient than charging out to Heathrow, humping baggage around and all that palaver. The hon. Gentleman has the window seat and is comfortably ensconced. The sherry is brought round before his meal and the soup has just been brought to the table when along comes a Customs officer who says, "Excuse me, sir. Would you be kind enough to identify your baggage'?" The hon. Gentleman must get up and in so doing disturbs the gentleman sitting next to him. Indeed, he probably slops his soup. He must go down the carriage, identify his baggage to the Customs officer and then return to his seat. The same thing will happen to everyone else down the train. It might well be that before such an exercise is over people will be wishing that they had airport-type controls whereby those who have nothing to declare can simply walk through the hall carrying their baggage as they have to do when they leave the train and the platform.

Mr. Holland

The scenario is very touching. On the extremely rare occasions when I have travelled by train on the continent and had lunch the Customs inspector has said, "May I see your passport? Have you anything to declare? No? Well, have a good meal." There is an alternative scenario to the Minister's point.

The Minister must appreciate that the trains in question are one and a half times the length of the standard inter-city train and will carry up to 770 passengers at a time. Therefore, it is not just a matter of getting off the train with the luggage and strolling through Customs. Individuals will stroll through Customs with 770 other people. There will not be the same filtering effect as there is at an airport. Whatever we think of the carousel luggage arrangement at an airport—indeed, if we get the tunnel, lack of a carousel is one of the things that will make Channel tunnel traffic extremely competitive—the fact that people wait for individual luggage means that passengers are filtered as they approach Customs. But at Waterloo the lack of on-train services may leave 540 people swearing their heads off at the Government's failure to consider that passengers must past other passengers to get out.

I believe that the Minister has shown us precisely that we need more public scrutiny and evaluation of this issue. We are having an interesting exchange on a substantive matter. However, we are not given any opportunity to consider this issue save for one further amendment concerning a report that British Rail may have to make by 1989. This discussion strengthens the case for that amendment.

7.45 pm
Mr. Mitchell

It should not be automatically assumed that, for travellers from Paris to London, it is more attractive to have on-train controls than to have off-train controls.

I accept that, when travelling between one continental city and another, there are few on-train controls. The hon. Gentleman is correct about that. However, that state of affairs derives from the fact that there has been a great deal of standardisation of duties and a whole variety of other things between one continental country and another. However, there is no such standardisation between us and continental countries. Therefore, the benefits of smuggling are much greater for people travelling into this country than they are for those travelling between one continental country and another.

We must also consider the problems regarding checks on rabies. I am aware that the hon. Member for Vauxhall is anxious to ensure that there is a whole series of ways in which we will be more strict about this matter than they are on the continent. It is right and proper that that strictness should continue. I am sure that Labour Members would be the first to demand that it should continue. Therefore, it is not as easy to make on-train controls without some degree of disturbance. That disturbance is worth making on longer distance journeys, but on the shorter journey from Paris to London such disturbance may not be worth while.

Mr. Holland

We are members of the Common Market. I appreciate that, a quarter of a century on, we do not have an integrated system within the Market and we do not have an "internal market". Indeed, people wonder whether we are in the Common Market when they are faced with border controls, passport control and so forth. With regard to variations in duty and VAT variations, whether there is 5p, 15p, 50p of £1 duty on a bottle of wine is not the point. We appreciate that rabies and drugs are of serious concern. Customs officers are not looking for someone who happens to bring back half a bottle of Scotch, but who has forgotten that they have left it in their luggage. Customs officers are searching for drugs or for people committing serious offences. Such offences must be dealt with.

I believe that we need more consideration of these issues if the Bill is to go through the House today. I hope that the Minister will take on board my remarks so that we can obtain a proper evaluation of what will otherwise cause considerable congestion at Waterloo.

Mr. Mitchell

The hon. Member for Vauxhall interrupted before I said that there are requirements for Customs and Excise to seach carefully for drugs. That means that we must have the facilities on a train to carry out a certain degree of searching.. That is an added problem.

On a shorter journey from London to Paris, such searches may well involve further disturbance to passengers who have been identified as those who require further searching. All that problem evaporates when people going through the green channel make a declaration of nothing to declare. X per cent. of them are then pulled out by Customs at its discretion for further searching. That can all be easily done in tin facilities at Waterloo with the minimum of disturbance and distraction to the other passengers who are not involved in such checks. The advantage is that it is a matter for the railway companies and Eurotunnel to take that into account.

Mr. Holland

When someone is suspected of having concealed drugs internally and so on, one does not need a passenger terminal at Waterloo to be able to deal with that. One needs offices and facilities to which persons who have been restrained on the train can be taken and where they can be searched.

The other point that did not emerge from the exchanges on signalling is that signalling improvements could increase the number of trains—my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is quite right about that. However, they will also increase the number of passengers using Waterloo. I seriously suggest to the Minister that by building in the assumption that there will not be on-train passenger inspection for Brussels —London or Paris—one is likely to create a bottleneck at Walerloo that will mean a deterioration of the service.

Mr. Mitchell

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to his concerns in that area. I shall bear them in mind and discuss them with British Rail in due course. There is nothing in the Government's proposals that prevents on-train controls to Waterloo if requested by British Rail, if the Customs and Excise can be satisfied on the availability of adequate facilities for its purposes. It is for British Rail to judge which is the most appropriate way.

I was trying to tell the hon. Gentleman earlier that it is not automatically—game, set and match—true that it is beneficial to have on-train controls between Paris and Waterloo. A judgment must be made, and we shall be better able to form one as time passes and as we gain more information about use, type of passengers and so on.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is quite right—if he were not, he would have been corrected by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East — about the advantages of resignalling, the improvement in train times that that would enable one to have, the increase in capacity and so on. I do not dissent from that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said that equal rights should apply to all operators and questioned the extent of Customs and Excise co-operation. We have had some initial discussions with Customs and Excise, which has been helpful in explaining its requirements, and these matters must be taken further before a final conclusion can be reached.

My hon. Friend asked about the boat trains for Sally Line and said that it has ordinary British Rail stock. He will realise from previous discussions the problem that that poses, as one must have some special facilities for the trains to be able to carry out Customs controls on them. In principle, there is no reason why an approach made by Sally Line for special facilities on the trains should not be considered on its merits. I am not sure whether the chamber of commerce of Ramsgate will thank my hon. Friend for such a proposition, as it would mean that all those uncles, aunts, ladies and various friends of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East would not be able to go on to the beach and spend their money in the shops, because they would be in bond going through from ship to London. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would be anxious that they should get out of the train and spend their money in his constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) raised the issue of equal treatment for the ports. The Government have given explicit assurances that, in the area of frontier controls, the tunnel and ports will be treated even-handedly. That is set out in detail in the Department of Transport's letter to the British Ports Association, reproduced in appendix 32 to the special report of the Commons Select Committee. I do not think that my hon. Friend would want me to quote the whole of that, but if he looks it up he will find it a cause of considerable satisfaction in the matter on which he is pressing me.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 19 agreed to, [One with Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 20 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 28 agreed to.

Forward to