Lords Sitting of 6 July 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Cricket: Violence at Matches
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that any action is now necessary to forestall violence at cricket matches.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, yes. The Test and County Cricket Board has proposed a series of useful measures which have been accepted by the authorities responsible for our Test Match grounds.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he accept that the recent incident was most unusual, and does he agree that it would be a setback for the game, with its special character and tempo, if spectators had to be marshalled or segregated? Will the Government do their best nonetheless to discourage the invasion of pitches through misplaced enthusiasm, although there was little reason for such exuberance early today from British supporters at the end of the Test Match?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that that was an unfortunate incident and we must try to see that it is prevented in the future. I very much hope that the agreement which was reached at a meeting which was chaired by the Test and County Cricket Board but which included also the police, the Government and indeed the Pakistani Embassy will lead now to an improvement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that that was a one-off situation which we are hoping will not be repeated. Can he tell us what consultations have been taking place between the cricket and other authorities in order to pool their experience of these and other matters? Does not the Minister also acknowledge that ready accessibility to alcohol very often has a great deal to do with the violence? The Government perhaps should reflect very much on their plans to extend drinking hours.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as regards consultation, I feel sure that the Test and County Cricket Board has been in touch with other people in the sporting world and has looked at what other sports have been doing. This is a game with a distinctive character. The parties that I mentioned were at the meeting. Indeed,
454
alcohol was one of the matters that was discussed. It was agreed that alcoho consumption at cricket matches will need to be watched closely and that stewards will deny entry to people with excessive supplies of alcohol.

NHS Waiting Lists
2.46 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total number of patients on National Health Service hospital waiting lists at the latest available date, and whether there is any variation in the size of waiting lists between the North and South of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, on 30th September 1986, there were 681,901 people on hospital in-patient waiting lists in England. The size of the lists varies within and between regions because of factors such as the size of the resident population. Although there is no obvious correlation between geographical position and the size of lists, the House will be interested to note, as I was, that the average list per 1,000 population for the five northern regional health authorities is below the average for the whole of England.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer and particularly for the interesting information about geographical distribution, which surprised me as well as him. Does he accept that after eight years of this Government the waiting list figure that he quoted is 73,000 higher than the number just before the end of 1978 and that that is a very disturbing situation? Can he say a little about what the Government are doing to bring down the waiting lists, North and South?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in answering the noble Lord, may I say that I am aware that he has recently been in hospital. I hope that he has fully recovered, not only from the cause for his admission but also from any effects he might have felt about having come out!
As we discussed last week, the number of patients treated in hospital has risen to an extra 1 million persons a year. As to the question asked by the noble Lord concerning what the Government are doing, we are naturally very concerned. As an emergency measure we have set up a waiting list fund. It is a three-year scheme which has a two-year core of money in the middle. An allocation of £25 million was made for the first year of the two-year period. Various schemes have been approved since February, when the money first became available.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord—this being my first opportunity—on his new post. I should also like to ask the noble Lord why he left out the figures for

455
Wales when he gave the figure of 681,901 people on waiting lists? My information is that there were an additional 35,770 people on the waiting list for Wales. I am surprised that there are no signs of alarm on the Opposition Front Bench over that matter. Next, does the Minister not think that it is absurd that in some districts there are long queues for services involving certain specialties, whereas in other districts there are no queues or very short queues? Can he say what the Government are planning to do to encourage cross-boundary flows?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I did not mention Wales or indeed Scotland because, in the time in which I had to prepare for the Question, I was not able to get the figures from the relevant departments. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out the error of my ways. So far as his supplementary question is concerned, yes, I am well aware that one of the major problems is the management problem. That concerns, first, the relationship between general practitioners and consultants and, secondly, the information that the general practitioners need as part of their thinking on referral for a particular consultation in terms of knowing where the waiting list for a particular specialty is lowest.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, has the noble Lord been told, as I have, that the difficulty in movement across boundaries is largely a matter of financial bureaucracy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have not had it explained to me in quite those terms. I have established that where there is a will, there is a way. I know of one dermatologist who recently managed to reduce his waiting list time from six months to two weeks.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the whole question of waiting lists and regions becomes topsy-turvey when one thinks of hospitals such as Guy's, which is brilliant in certain specialties, and whose waiting list covers the whole of southern England? I am aware of that because I used to be governor of that hospital. Most of its patients come from the coastal areas. Therefore, how do we define who is waiting for what, and in what region?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I am advised that Moorfields Hospital, which is another specialist hospital, was at one time actively promoting the admission of patients so that they could carry on with their teaching work.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a slight danger in reading too much into hospital waiting lists? When there was no such thing as a hip replacement operation, there were no waiting lists for hip replacement operations.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the advances in medical science have a bearing on the matter. I shall go further and say that what matters for individual patients is not the size of the list but how long they must wait for treatment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that he owes the House no apology? My Question concerned England, and it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales to answer questions concerning the situation in Wales. I have two supplementary questions. The Minister referred to the number of patients treated. I had understood last week that the Minister was not speaking of the number of patients treated but the number of times people have been admitted to hospital. In addition, can the Minister tell me when the £25 million scheme started and whether it is possible to see any results from that expenditure?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the £25 million in the fund to which I referred was first available in February of this year. It is too soon to see any results. So far as the number of patients treated is concerned, I know that the noble Lord has a fixation about the figures being unreliable because of repeat treatments. However, fashions in medicine in some specialties have demanded that in any case. Also, as the noble Lord will know from his weekend's experience, people are not normally in hospital without good reason.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have been admitted to hospital six times this year and I am in cracking health, but that I have been registered as being six patients? I am only one man, great though I may be.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the noble Lord's health history. But I suspect that the consultant, the general practitioner or whoever referred him in the first place treated the noble Lord, quite rightly, as a patient for each individual incident.
2.50 p.m.

Working Conditions: Statutory Protection
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the part-time, lowly-paid sector of the workforce, and women in particular, have adequate statutory protection in respect of pay and conditions of work.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, statutory protections on matters of pay and health and safety do not normally distinguish between full- and part-time workers, or between men and women. However, where some other protections are concerned some minimum qualification in terms of hours worked is necessary if employers are not to be prevented by excessive regulation from running their businesses effectively and thus creating jobs.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply so far as it goes.

457
Is the Minister really content to leave the protection of vulnerable sectors of the workforce to so-called market forces? Is the Minister aware, for instance, that thousands of full-time workers get only a temporary contract of 12 weeks, and that this can go on indefinitely without them getting a permanent contract? Is he also aware that part-time employers working fewer than 16 hours a week can remain on a temporary contract until they complete five years of service? Does the Minister really think that arrangements of that kind are satisfactory, equitable and just?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that the best protection we can give a worker today is a job, and the cases which the noble Lord has outlined show how restrictive even the existing legislation can be in the eyes of some employers. What we are concerned about is that we continue with a world in which 65 per cent. of those of working age are in paid employment. That is a matter on which to congratulate ourselves and not one for criticism because of lack of protection.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us some examples of the restrictions that he would like to see taken away from the safety precautions, etc.?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, because I am not suggesting that I would do that. But what I should not like to do is to go back to a form of repressive regime, the abolition of which I suspect helped to create the 1 million new jobs which we have seen since 1983.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, what plans has the Minister for extending employment rights, for instance, including pension rights, to part-time workers? In his original reply the Minister said that there is no differentiation; but I wonder whether he would care to comment on the situation that in many cases in the retail and distributive trades young people are being used as a pool of low-paid, casual and temporary labour. Surely there are categories of workers—and in my Question I mentioned the low paid and women—who are especially vulnerable in today's circumstances. Can the Minister help me on that aspect?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, wages councils exist in many of the industries covered by the distributive trades, and I really would require some evidence of the assertion which the noble Lord makes that there are such pools of low paid or young people acting in the way in which he suggests.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord is not dealing adequately with my noble friend's Question. Is he aware that my noble friend is referring to a section of the workforce who for various reasons are not being treated properly in relation to their conditions of work or their wages? I would not expect him to give us a final answer now. What he has done is to dismiss my noble friend's question as being of no account. It is a very important question and I would plead with the noble Lord to
458
look at this very carefully, and if necessary to write to my noble friend or to make a statement to the House later.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, may I just say that I do not accept the assertion that there are a number of people who are not being dealt with properly? We have wages councils whose job today in the number of industries they cover is to settle minimum hourly rates of pay, minimum overtime rates and the limit to be charged for accommodation. I hear from time to time from employers about difficulties in engaging people. I should like to have produced before your Lordships' House examples of these assertions that are made. If that is done, then I promise your Lordships that they will be dealt with.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, would the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, not agree that many women, in order to obtain the flexibility that might help them with their domestic commitments, have sacrificed jobs which contained protection, adequate pension rights and maternity rights and have now had to forfeit those? Would the noble Lord look at the conditions under which those women now work, with particular reference to those who do home work?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, of all women between the ages of 16 and 59 no fewer than 60 per cent. are in employment in this country. I believe that the only other country in the Community that has more women in employment is Denmark. That surely is a matter for congratulation. If about one-quarter of the women are in part-time employment, that is only because as more and more women go into work, many who are married look for only part-time employment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, agree that apparently the Prince of Wales did not think that all working conditions are satisfactory?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not think that is a matter which is the subject of this Question, nor is it a matter which we should raise in your Lordships' House.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, the noble Lord has argued in defence of this situation that wages councils exist. Would he not accept that wages councils have been considerably weakened, both in their coverage and in the inspectorate which ensures that wages councils can do an adequate job?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that wages councils today do an adequate job. They get the balance right between conditions which allow jobs to grow in the community and the necessary protections for those in employment. We have seen employment continue to grow. We still have unemployment today at 2,950,000. We shall be doing what we can to see that more jobs grow, not the other way.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied about the enforceability of judgments of the industrial tribunals? There are cases of appalling failure to give effect to judgments of the tribunals in respect of underpaid workers.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am informed that prosecutions in the past have been historically few, and in fact rarely reach double figures under any government. What is important is that we ensure that the effects of the wages councils' orders, in respect of the workers they cover, are known and that we maintain an inspectorate which maintains checks.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what I believe he said. But may I be clear that he would be willing to receive a deputation led by myself of those outside who are convinced that the case I have made is correct and that there is evidence of widespread abuse? If that evidence is assembled, will the noble Lord be happy to receive the deputation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am quite sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment (who is primarily concerned with this matter) will be happy to receive any delegation that the noble Lord wishes to advance. But I asked for proof or evidence, not for a delegation. There have been many assertions from noble Lords opposite this afternoon making allegations about conditions and terms of employment. This requires some substantiation in some way or other.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the allegations or suggestions made by the Prince of Wales, to which my noble friend referred in her question?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, I have not. I am very concerned with inner city matters and I suspect it would be better if this question was not dealt with in this way. It is very wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

EC: Finance Arrangements
2.59 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state what article of the Treaty of Rome or other regulation, directive or decision made thereunder gives authority to the European Commission to cut or withhold amounts payable to individual farmers under the existing regulations in force.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, council Regulation No. 729/70 requires the Commission to make advance payments to national intervention bodies to fund their expenditure on EAGGF guarantee section
460
measures. The Commission's ability to make advances depends, however, on the availability of funds in the budget. In 1987 the budget is likely only to be sufficient to cover expenditure to the end of October. The European Council on 30th June agreed that the system of advances should be adjusted in order to keep expenditure within the budget. The details are still to be resolved, but the impact of the changes is likely to fall on national exchequers rather than having any effect on payments to farmers and traders.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Answer is the complete contradiction of a report that appeared in the Conservative Party house journal, the Daily Telegraph, some days ago, which indicated that the Commission is considering making cuts? Furthermore is he aware that his Answer is most satisfactory in another way, in that it appears that the only way of effecting cuts in compulsory expenditure on the EAGGF is simply not to agree with the budget? Will he give the House an assurance that his right honourable friend, when he appears at the Economic and Financial Council on the 13th, will firmly dig in his heels and impose in effect cash limits upon this expenditure, thus justifying completely the assurance of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that expenditure will be kept under strict control?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord does not expect me in any way to be in a position to give any form of assurance on behalf of my right honourable friend. I assure him that discussions are continuing on the Commission's proposals for changes in the Community's finances, including an increase in the Community's resources. Any such increase would require the agreement of all member states. The UK, however, has made it clear that we will consider extra resources only if genuine steps have been taken towards reforming the common agricultural policy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the identical assurance was given in another place and to this House immediately after the Fountainebleau conference with no result whatever? Budgetary discipline still has not been maintained. Is he further aware that many of us suspect that after the next conference to which he referred the budget will still remain out of control?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that many Members of this House are well aware that the Prime Minister received a tremendously adverse press in the rest of Europe for taking such a strong line on 30th June on reforming the finances of Europe.

Business
3.2 p.m
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Channel Tunnel Bill will be adjourned at approximately seven p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment

461
the Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, the Occupiers' Liability (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and the Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and the Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1987 will be taken.

Business of the House: Debates, 9th July
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday next to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Nathan to be taken before that standing in the name of the Lord Lyell.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debates, 15th July
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Peston and the Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove set down for 15th July shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, 1 beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Ampthill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Belstead, L.

Birk, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Butterworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Cathcart, E.

Chitnis, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

David, B.

Davidson, V.

Dean of Beswick, L.

462

Denham, L.

Diamond, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Ferrers, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Gibson, L.

Gisborough, L.

Greenway, L.

Halsbury, E.

Hampton, L.

Havers, L. (L. Chancellor)

Hooper, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Kimball, L.

Kimberley, E.

Kirkhill, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

McNair, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Moran, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Nicol, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Phillips, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Rea, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Sandys, L.

Seear, B.

Seebohm, L.

Serota, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Stedman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

Whitelaw, V. (L. President)

Young, B.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session:

Airedale, L.

Alport, L.

Ampthill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Cox, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

Denham, L.

Hayter, L.

Listowel, E.

463

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Renton, L.

Simon, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

White, B.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Composition of Safety Authority.
—(1) The Chairman of the Safety Authority shall be appointed jointly by the governments of the United Kingdom and France and shall be a person who is independent of those governments.
(2) The members of the Safety Authority to be appointed by the government of the United Kingdom shall include—

(a) the Chief Fire Officer of the Kent Fire Authority;

(b) a member of the Health and Safety Executive;

(c)a mining engineer;

(d)a person having practical knowledge of explosives;

(e)a person having practical knowledge of railway safety matters; and

(f) the Chief Constable of the Kent Police Authority.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, which proposes to insert a new clause, perhaps I may first refer to paragraph 10 of the Select Committee report which lists five matters which counsel for the Government urged were not relevant to the Select Committee proceedings.
Paragraph 11 of the Select Committee report states that counsel suggested that two other matters also be excluded, one being the safety of the tunnel system. The Select Committee strongly rejected that submission and the reports of the daily proceedings illustrate the very detailed consideration which the Select Committee gave to the various matters of safety.
The proposed new clause seeks to ensure that the safety authority will have as its UK representatives persons with the relevant experience to deal with the authority's very responsible duties. I think it is agreed in the public mind that the safety of the Channel Tunnel is paramount. Subsection (1) of the new clause proposes that the chairman of the authority shall be appointed jointly by the UK and French
464
Governments and shall be a person independent of those governments.
This proposal is in full accord with the view of the Select Committee as set out in paragraph 130 of its report. The Select Committee emphasised that this suggestion in no way reflects upon the capacity or integrity of the members of the authority at present appointed. The chairmanship of the authority is dealt with in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the booklet containing the Government's response to the Select Committee's recommendations. The Government seem to be indicating that on his retirement the chief inspecting officer of railways, who is the present chairman of the authority, will then be of independent status. Therefore, whoever it is decided shall eventually be the chairman, the Government seem to accept the principle of independence as set out in subsection (1).
Paragraph 120 of the Select Committee report states that the concession agreement established a safety authority and the Minister confirmed that fact during our Committee considerations last Tuesday. Paragraph 121 of the Select Committee report expressed some unease at these institutional arrangements. Therefore, subsection (2) of the amendment sets out some persons who should be included among the UK members. It is important and generally in line with the view of the Select Committee. I emphasise that the amendment proposes that the UK members should include those on the list set out in the amendment. It is not a exclusive list.
Paragraph 120 of the Select Committee report states that the Chief Fire Officer of Kent and a representative of the Health and Safety Executive are present members of the authority. They are included in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment and therefore that will surely meet with the approval of the Government.
The Select Committee states in paragraph 121 that it is convinced that because issues of public order and criminal law will inevitably arise, it is essential that the Chief Constable of Kent should be a full member of the authority. That suggestion is included in paragraph (f) in the amendment. I confess that I am somewhat amazed that, although paragraph 20 of the Government's response accepts that questions of public order and criminal law will arise, nevertheless it also states that they are not issues within the remit of the safety authority and it proposes that the chief constable should be a member of the safety authority working group and not of the safety authority itself, as the Select Committee has urged.
I hope that the Committee will agree with the Select Committee that the chief constable should be a full member of the safety authority. On the safety authority there is already a person with practical knowledge of railway matters; namely, the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways. Item (e) must therefore meet with the Government's agreement. It would seem that items (c) and (d) are the only proposed items still to be argued.
During its proceedings the Select Committee heard evidence from Dr. Herbert Eisner, a Fellow of the Institute of Mining Engineers and a former director of the Explosion and Flame Laboratory, Health and Safety Executive. Dr. Eisner drew attention to the

465
parallel between the ventilation regime in the tunnel and that which applies in the mines. That is justification sufficient for such an appointment to be to the safety authority.
The rationale behind the need for an expert on explosives is perhaps more obvious, and I do not believe that there is need to argue the case. A similar amendment was put forward in Committee in the other place, but it did not include the question of the independence of the chairman, or membership of the Chief Constable of Kent on the safety authority. The Government's response on that occasion was disappointing. It was to the effect that the authority could draw on the relevant experience of officers of the department.
I urge that points (c) and (d), mining and explosives, are as important as the other matters covered by members of the authority and that such persons should he full members of the authority. As I have explained, I believe that in general the Government seem to support the principles of the new clause. I hope therefore that they will find it possible to accept it. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having brought this amendment before the Committee. I agree with him that it is an extremely important issue. The safety authority has a crucial role to play. We should perhaps remind ourselves of that role. The authority is essentially a technical body, established by the Channel Fixed Link Treaty to advise and assist the Intergovernmental Commission on all matters concerning safety and the construction and operation of the fixed link.
The treaty confers on the safety authority a specific responsibility and powers in relation to safety matters in the tunnel system. It will exist for the duration of the concession period. It will help if we can bear those points in mind when considering the two parts of the amendment.
First, the amendment would require a single, and presumably permanent, chairman of the safety authority to be appointed jointly by the British and French Governments, who would be independent of the two Governments. We must first recognise that the idea of a single, jointly appointed chairman would be contrary to what the British and French Governments have already agreed in the Channel Fixed Link Treaty. In Article 11(14) the treaty provides that the chairmanship of the safety authority shall be held for a period of one year by the head of each delegation alternatively. If we wanted to change that arrangement, we should have to negotiate an amendment to the treaty and the French Government have told us that they see no need for such a change. I hope to convince the Committee that there is no need for such a change and that it would be positively undesirable.
Let us be frank about this. Although it has not been said in so many words, what the Committee fears is that decisions made by the safety authority on technical grounds will be overruled at a higher level for commercial or party political reasons. The fear has been expressed, although not by the noble Lord,
466
Lord Underhill, this afternon, that the Britis delegation might be overruled by the French.
The Government entirely agree that there must be safeguards against that happening and that the chairman and members should not be put into the position of feeling that they had to resign. There are such safeguards. Those which were already in place have been strengthened following discussion of this subject in Select Committee. I should like to list them. Let us first dispose of the fear that the British delegation might be overruled by the French. The safety authority advises and assists the Intergovernmental Commission. It is the commission which takes the decisions and Article 10(5) of the treaty provides that its decisions:
"shall be taken by agreement between the heads of the British and French delegations".
There can thus be no question of our views being overruled by the French.
Because the safety authority only advises and assists the Intergovernmental Commission, fears have been expressed that the commission might overrule the safety authority. In Article 19(4), the treaty provides that the membership of the commission must include at least two members of the safety authority so that it can be sure of making its voice heard. What if it were to be overruled by the commission? The safety authority can then make its voice heard. Under Article 11(7) of the treaty, the authority has an absolute right to talk directly to Ministers. The Select Committee expressed a proper concern that that might not of itself be enough because—let me be frank again—Ministers might be in cahouts with Eurotunnel; and so the Government have now gone further.
I told this place on 28th April that the Government had given an assurance to the Select Committee as follows:
"should the safety authority bring to the attention of the Secretary of State a fundamental disagreement on an important issue of public safety between themselves and the Intergovernmental Commission or should the UK delegation to the safety authority notify a similar disagreement between themselves and their French counterparts, the Secretary of State for Transport will report that fact to Parliament".—(Official Report, 28/4/87; col. 1474.]
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said in the Select Committee that that met his concerns and the noble Lord the Chairman agreed.
I can understand that we may have doubts about the Intergovernmental Commission. I understand that we may have doubts about Ministers. I even suggest that we might have doubts about a single chairman, however independent he was, but I cannot accept that we can doubt the integrity of Parliament as a whole. I repeat my assurance that Parliament would be told. That deals with crises.
I also remind the Committee that as a matter of course Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise all regulations which it is proposed to make governing safety in the tunnel. The safety authority and the Intergovernmental Commission will draw up the regulations, but they will have to be laid before Parliament under Clause 11 before they can have the force of law.
It has been suggested that we propose to delegate responsibility for safety in the tunnel to a few civil

467
servants and to let them get on with it. As I hope I have shown, that is not so. We are appointing a group of experts to advise us—a bi-national group, because it is a bi-national project. On each side of the Channel the Governments have appointed as head of their team the person best qualified for the post who has the crucial expertise.
In our case, that is the present Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, he is due to retire later this year. It is proposed to retain him as head of the United Kingdom delegation for the safety authority and to appoint his successor as Chief Inspecting Officer as an additional member of the delegation. That will ensure that he can devote sufficient time to his safety authority functions during the crucial design stage. He is an expert. We are speaking of a man who knows more than anyone else in Britain about ensuring that the railways are safe and who for many years has exercised independent responsibilities in approving new railway construction and equipment and in conducting inquiries. His independence is assured, because his views will be made known to Parliament if any attempt is made to overrule him and his colleagues. I think we have it right.
I turn now to the second limb of the amendment, which seeks to prescribe in the Bill the type of people who must be members of the safety authority. I shall first remind the Committee of the composition of the present United Kingdom delegation. As well as the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, an expert in railway safety, we have nominated the Department of Transport's Chief Highways Engineer, who is a most distinguished civil engineer, a senior representative of the Health and Safety Executive and the Chief Fire Officer of Kent.
In relation to the suggestions contained in the amendment, it would appear that our delegation lacks expertise in mining and explosives and will not benefit from input by the Kent Police Authority. If these important areas were being ignored it would indeed be worrying; but they are not. The safety authority itself must be kept to a manageable size if it is to fulfil its functions efficiently.
But it has always been envisaged that the authority would be the core of a much larger group of experts whose knowledge and experience would be needed. This is why the treaty provides in Article 1(6) that:
"for the purposes of carrying out its functions, the safety authority may invoke the assistance of the authorities of each government or any body or expert of its choice".
Such experts can be invited to attend meetings of the authority itself, but their major input will be to the detailed consideration of technical issues in the authority's five working groups on civil engineering and general equipment, rescue and public safety, rail safety and technology, health and safety at work, and dangerous goods. In this way the safety authority has already arranged for input from the areas of concern which the noble Lord mentions in the amendment.
Knowledge of mining engineering is recognised to be relevant. The member of the Health and Safety Executive therefore will be drawing on expertise from HM Mines and Quarries Inspectorate and from the
468
Explosion and Flame Laboratory at Buxton, both of which form part of the Health and Safety Executive and which are the main experts in this area. Because of this expertise the Health and Safety Executive member is also the UK chairman of the Working Group on Dangerous Goods, which will be considering and ruling on Eurotunnel's proposals for the transport of dangerous substances through the tunnel.
Having mentioned explosives let me dispel one misconception. The safety authority's mandate does not extend to responsibility for the physical security of the tunnel in the sense of prevention of terrorism and the like. The treaty provides in Article 5 for separate arrangements to deal with these matters. These arrangements are being put in place. They are being co-ordinated both between the two governments and with the work of the safety authority. But I hope that Members of the Committee do not expect me to go into detail in public about such matters.
Turning to the matter of the Kent Police the Government accept that they have a crucial part to play. They are already fully involved in discussions between the British and French Governments on matters of public order and law, which of course fall outside the remit of the safety authority. In addition they will need to be involved in the safety authority's consideration of contingency planning and crisis management. In accordance with the undertaking we gave in the Select Committee the Chief Constable of Kent has been invited to nominate a representative to the safety authority working group on rescue and public safety matters. My information is that the police authority regards this as a satisfactory way of making its essential input.
Looking more generally at this limb of the amendment, it seeks, as its proposers explained, to establish certain members of the safety authority on a permanent basis. This is not a sensible approach. It will be necessary to have members of appropriate expertise throughout the construction and operation period, but what is appropriate might change. I assure the Committee that the Government will maintain appropriate expert membership of the British delegation and we shall expect the French Government to do likewise.
I have spoken at some length on this subject because it is very important. It is indeed one of the most important topics that we shall be discussing today. The Government attach the utmost importance to the independence and expertise of the safety authority. However, we believe that the present arrangements provide what is needed. I am sure that there will be a good debate on this amendment, but I hope that I have been at least able to put the Government's view at an early stage.
Lord Morris: I am very grateful to my noble friend for explaining so fully and with such care the reasons why he feels that this amendment should not be agreed to. He stated very clearly that the main effect of the amendment is to fly in the face of a treaty which has already been signed.

469
A practical point about the amendment which slightly worries me is this. It provides that the chairman of the safety authority:
"shall be appointed jointly by the governments of the United Kingdom and France".
Let us say for the sake of argument that this amendment is agreed to and that the French determine that they shall not so appoint. Where will that leave us? If Parliament tries to change a treaty that has already been entered into with another country and tries, through an Act of Parliament, to force the Government of another country to change the terms of that treaty, the likelihood is that that country will say, "No, we shall take no note of your Act of Parliament"—and why indeed should they? I believe for that reason that this amendment is flawed.
With regard to the second part of the amendment, my noble friend explained with great care the reason why he dismisses the practical benefit; namely, on the ground that it is unnecessary. A careful sight of the Bill will make it quite clear that there is ample provision, not only intergovernmentally but by the concessionaires within the Bill, to make and enforce all the arrangements for safety. I believe that future users of the tunnel have nothing whatever to fear with regard to the intention of this Government, or the powers of future governments, to ensure their safety.
Viscount Cross: I have noted what the Minister has just said. Nevertheless I should like to support the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and in the name also of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. At the same time I should like to say a few words about safety.
I have heard the proposed Channel Tunnel compared with the tunnels under the Alps. For instance, the railway tunnel through Mont Blanc is a long one and at a great height of 8,000 or 9,000 feet. The vehicles are carried on open railway cars. They are cooled by the mountain air and become cooler as they pass through the tunnel. I suggest that the Channel Tunnel is very different.
One can imagine a case where a Continental camion or car is driven a long distance across Europe, Scotland, the North of England or anywhere else. It is driven hard and arrives very hot at the loading point. Quite unknown to the driver an axle has overheated. A brake lining has been binding. Most vehicles are well maintained, but the engine could be covered with oil and grease. There could be a small petrol leak of which the driver is unaware. He turns off the ignition and owing to something called latent heat, the temperature of the engine rises and halfway through the tunnel there is suddenly self ignition. Let us pray that that never happens. Let us pray that there are never any bodies, but there would be a lot of charred vehicles and nobody would know what had happened. Because that might happen, I suggest that the passengers could be carried on one train and the vehicles on another. Another suggestion is that there might be what could be described as a cooling down period before the vehicles are loaded on to the train.
Lord Tordoff: Without wishing to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken—who seemed to be
470
making a speech against any vehicles in any circumstances in or out of the tunnel—I feel some reassurance from what the Minister said on the second half of this amendment.
In relation to the appointment of an independent chairman, we on these Benches feel that the Government's position is rather weak. He made reference to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich having given some agreement at some stage. My noble friend offers his apologies for not being in his place to hear what I have to say. He has a prior engagement and will be here later. When I spoke to him this morning he gave me the impression that he would support the first part of the amendment to the hilt and that he had in no way changed his mind about the independence of the chairman.
The date of publication of the report, which was ordered to be printed on 6th May, postdates the date of the conversations to which the noble Lord referred. Therefore presumably by the time of publication the committee had not changed its mind on paragraph 130. I see the chairman of that committee nodding. The committee is of the opinion:
"that many of the concerns expressed in this part of the report might be laid to rest by the appointment of a totally independent Chairman of the Safety Authority".
There are clearly still worries, and understandably so, about the safety element. If the public is to be reassured on the safety of the tunnel (which is surely necessary before the financing of the tunnel is completed), then this is a perfectly simple and straightforward way of giving reassurance. That part of the amendment we support.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: I am sure that neither the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, nor the Minister will be surprised that I wholeheartedly support the first part of this amendment. It would be somewhat eccentric if I did not do so as it covers one of the many recommendations that the Select Committee made and in fact is one of only two that the Government have not embraced.
I shall deal briefly with the second part of the amendment. I do not entirely go long with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on the designation of "mining engineer" and "person having practical knowledge of explosives". As the Minister himself said, this is essentially a technical body but I do not believe that it is necessary to write into the Bill which particular technician should be appointed because circumstances might change.
The appointment of an independent chairman seemed to the Select Committee to be of immense advantage not only to allay public anxiety, but to give help to the safety authority itself. As I hope we made clear in our report, this was in no way whatever a reflection on Major Rose. We heard evidence from an enormous number of very impressive witnesses but none more so than Major Rose. I hope that nobody expects that because we made the suggestion it was in the slightest degree a reflection on an admirable public servant. We believe that an independent

471
chairman would be of value because, as the Minister has said, this is a technical body and it is sometimes better for a technical body to have an independent chairman who is not a technician. We believe that we want someone with clout, someone who can pick up a telephone, get straight through to the Secretary of State and, after perhaps inquiring about the prospects on his moor or his river, report to him that there is a problem on which, unless the Minister can deal with it expeditiously, it may be necessary to go public.
It is for that reason and that reason alone that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will press his amendment.
Lord Mulley: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Underhill will, in the interests of meeting what seems to be the wish of many Members of the Committee, wish to have the independence written into the Bill in subsection (1) but will not press the second part of his amendment. If, as I hope, we adopt the amendment, no doubt these words could be taken out at a subsequent stage. As I said at the outset, I have been extremely impressed, as we all have, with the careful way in which the Select Committee went about its business. It would be very wrong if now we were not to take notice of one its important recommendations. I was impressed by what the chairman of that committee has just said to us.
Lord Beloff: I have not heard any Members of the Committee who have spoken on this amendment so far answer what seems to me the very valid point made by my noble friend Lord Morris that subsection (1) of the amendment asks that the French Government amend the treaty. That is asking a great deal of this Government and they would be asking a great deal of the French Government. Presumably these issues were thoroughly canvassed when the treaty was negotiated. One might add that, while the concept of an eminent or cloutworthy person independent of government may be a familiar feature in this country in relation to certain aspects of government, it would be rather unfamiliar to the French Government. I have never met an eminent Frenchman whom I would describe as wholly independent of the French Government. I doubt whether such a person exists. Is it then perhaps intended to suggest to the French Government that a person of another nationality be appointed? He could hardly be an American because with the difference in time his ability to ring up the Secretary of State at the right moment would be very hard to calculate.
No doubt there are eminent Dutchmen, Belgians or persons of some other nationality who might fulfil this role, but it is peculiar because one would be asking someone who is a member of neither country to be available to be in touch with both governments.
There is a curious feeling underlying this amendment that perhaps we would be more concerned about safety than the French. I find it very difficult to understand that. I can see that one may think that a partner government may try to take financial advantage here or there, but there is no reason to believe that the French Government are
472
less concerned about the safety of their citizens than are the British Government. On reflection the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, might think that to start renegotiation of the treaty at this stage for this rather elusive purpose is not worth pursuing.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had a good debate on this subject. My noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Beloff have put their fingers on one grave difficulty with this amendment, which is the question of the treaty, which has already been signed. The first paragraphs of Clause 1 state that:
"the construction and operation of a tunnel rail link…[shall be] in accordance with … the Treaty between the United Kingdom of Great Britain … and the French Republic".
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Beloff about the difficulty of perhaps finding an independent Frenchman. Indeed it is difficult to establish who would be defined as independent by this amendment. It could be that my noble friend is right and that neither a British nor a French man would fit the bill.
My noble friend Lord Cross spoke about safety` in general terms and the possibility of fire in the tunnel. What we are talking about here is the composition of the safety authority, but the safety authority has made it absolutely clear that until it is satisfied with the arrangements in the tunnel it will not let the matter go ahead. It is as simple as that.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his disagreement, if I may put it that way, with the second part of the amendment on which he is now perhaps not entirely 100 per cent. certain. When I mentioned that his noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich was satisfied with the assurance I gave in a Written Answer about bringing any dispute up before Parliament, I think I was quoting from the Minutes of Evidence page 703. If he reads that carefully, he will see that it gave some reassurance to the noble Lord.
I have already said how grateful we are to the Select Committee for the enormous amount of work that it did. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, supported the first part of the amendment. He said that his main reason for doing so was that we needed an independent chairman to allay public anxiety, someone who could pick up the telephone to the Secretary of State and say to him that he would go public if his concerns were not met. That is exactly what we have said would happen if there were any dispute between the safety authority and the Intergovernmental Commission or between the British and French. The matter would be reported to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State would report it to Parliament. I have given that assurance again this afternoon. It would be taken very seriously. It would come straight out into the open in Parliament if there were any disputes or worries on that score.
I hate to disagree with the Select Committee on this matter. It is probably one of the few areas where we disagree. But what I have outlined in my opening speech this afternoon will work and should allay any anxiety about safety. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, for the kind words he said about Major Rose. It is recognised that he is a very great

473
professional in his field. I understand that all members of the Select Committee were impressed with the evidence he gave. He will act in the best interests of the travelling public. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will be satisfied with what has been said this afternoon and will not seek to press the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I should like to say at the outset that I am grateful, as I am sure is the whole Committee, for the Minister's detailed reply on this important subject. That does not necessarily mean that I agree with what he has said but he has given considerable attention to the issue. It is strange that while he applauds the comments made by his noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Beloff, I cannot see any reference to the case in the Government's response to the chairmanship of the safety authority proposal of the Select Committee in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23. They make no mention of that, yet it is put forward today as one of the outstanding reasons why the amendment I have proposed cannot be supported.
I said last Thursday that, although I could not claim to have read every word of the evidence of the Select Committee, I had gone over all the pages and where there was anything important I had read it. I read the sections on safety with considerable attention. There is no doubt about the detailed consideration which the Select Committee gave to it. I agree with what has been said about the expertise and competence of Major Rose. However, it will be noticed that no reference has been made to the competence and expertise of Dr. Herbert Eisner, to whom I referred, a Fellow of the Institute of Mining Engineers and a former director of the Explosion and Flame Laboratory of the Health and Safety Executive. No reference has been made to him, as I said in my opening remarks.
In subsection (2) the chief fire officer is already included, and so no one will argue about that. A member of the Health and Safety Executive is already included. Somebody with practical knowledge of railway safety matters is already included. The question of the mining engineer and a person having practical knowledge could if necessary be dealt with by one of the prominent members of the department. That could be covered quite easily and so there should be no argument on that point. Strangely enough there has been no argument about the Chief Constable of the Kent Police Authority being included, a point which I put forward. Therefore, despite what the Minister has said, there would be no disagreement in the Committee on subsection (2).
There is such deep feeling on subsection (1) that if it is necessary to adjust it to meet the position of the chairman—French for one year and then British—that could easily be adapted at Report stage. Despite the assurance the Minister has given, this is a matter at which the public will be looking with great attention. The Select Committee gave the matter much consideration and felt that the chairman, whether appointed for one year or two years, as is provided by the agreement, should be thoroughly independent of the Government. I believe that the public would welcome that. I should like to test the
474
feeling of the Committee. If my amendment is carried the Government can amend subsection (1) at Report stage in order to adjust the position of the annual chairman. This is a question of principle and party politics does not come into it. It is to give the general assurance the public want and to establish a detailed matter of principle which the Select Committee considered was so important that it emphasised it in the report.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will answer one question. There is a good deal of substance in what he and the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Ampthill, the chairman of the Select Committee, said on the amendment. I had considerable sympathy with it. However, knowing the extraordinary amount of hard work that has been put into this, and in the face of what my noble friend has said, how do Members of the Committee supporting the amendment view the fact that, if it were carried, the treaty would have to be renegotiated? Am I not right in thinking that it almost inadvertently becomes a wrecking amendment? I should be grateful to have that explained to me.
Lord Ampthill: Perhaps I may intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, finally makes his decision on what he is going to do. I am not certain that the Minister has been well advised that a renegotiation of the treaty is called for but that is an impression which I am not in a position to support absolutely. I think he has ample opportunity to investigate that aspect of it between now and Report stage.
Lord Underhill:. That was an important intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who was chairman of the Select Committee. Despite what the Minister has said, nothing in subsection (1) would require renegotiation except the question of a single chairman. There is provision for there to be a British chairman, who would be chairman for one year, and a French chairman, who would be chairman for another year. That is the only change that would need to be made to subsection (1). It could easily be done at Report stage if it were the view of the Committee to support the amendment. There is nothing in subsection (2) that transgresses against what the Minister has said, because it could be adapted accordingly. The Select Committee felt solidly that it wanted to ensure somewhere in the Bill the complete independence of the chairman. If we agree on this the Government can come back at Report stage and can make any amendment they require to deal with the position of the chairman rotating, one year French and one year British.
Lord Morris: I am convinced that the first part of the amendment flies in the face of a treaty arrangement already made. Can the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, explain how a statute of the United Kingdom can compel the French Government to do anything?
Lord Underhill: This is a point in which no one would expect me to get immersed. I am concerned with principles. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, is emphatic on this point, but why did not the Government refer to this in their response to the Select Committee? They made no reference to it and yet this is now being put forward as one of the main considerations against the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can answer that question extremely easily. This amendment goes beyond the recommendations of the Select Committee, which acknowledged that there would have to be alternate French and British chairmen. That is why the government response to the Select Committee did not refer to the difficulties which have been raised by my noble friend.
Lord Tordoff: The conclusions in the report are that it is the committee's opinion that there ought to be the appointment of a totally independent chairman of the safety authority; somebody whose name is well known to the public of the United Kingdom or France, since it would alternate between the two countries. But I do not see how that overrules what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. If the Government are saying that this committee has no right to discuss the matter because a treaty obligation has been entered into, why have they been wasting our time and the time of our noble friends on the Select Committee?
Baroness Seear: May I ask the noble Lord a question regarding the meaning of "independence" in relation to the treaty? If this person is appointed in the way in which judges are appointed, in that they cannot be removed whatever they do except for gross personal misconduct and so on, it would give independence if that was undertaken in the appointment. Would that be in conflict with the treaty?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am afraid that I cannot answer that point without assistance. What I said was that the Select Committee recognised that there would have to be alternate chairmen between France and Britain. That was something which was recognised. But this amendment goes beyond that. I certainly do not suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, that we were wasting the time of the committee. That is just one point on it, but I have also given a long explanation of why I think the present arrangements are fully satisfactory.
Lord Underhill: The Minister has given his explanation, the chairman of the Select Committee has given his view on the matter, I have given my view and other noble Lords have said that this subsection (1) is important. We ought to see whether the Committee agrees with that principle.
3.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Banks, L.

Leatherland, L.

Basnett, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

McNair, L.

Blyth, L.

Mais, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mulley, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Munster, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Carver, L.

Phillips, B.

Chitnis, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Cornwallis, L.

Cross, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Denington, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Denning, L.

Scanlon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Ennals, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Ezra, L.

Shannon, E.

Gallacher, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Galpern, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Somers, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hankey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hayter, L.

Underhill, L.

Holderness, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Erne, E.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Alport, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Arran, E.

Glanusk, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beloff, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bessborough, E.

Hardinge of Penhurst, L.

Birdwood, L.

Havers, L.

Blake, L.

Hesketh, L.

Borthwick, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hood, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Caithness, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cox, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

De Freyne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

De La Warr, E.

Mancroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Manton, L.

Dowding, L.

Margadale, L.

Dudley, B.

Marley, L.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Eccles, V.

Mersey, V.

Effingham, E.

Morris, L.

Elibank, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

477

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Slim, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Stockton, E.

Onslow, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Pender, L.

Strathspey, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Porritt, L.

Teviot, L.

Portland, D.

Torrington, V.

Radnor, E.

Trafford, L.

Reay, L.

Tranmire, L.

Redesdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reilly, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renton, L.

Vickers, B.

Rodney, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Romney, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Saint Brides, L.

Wise, L.

St. Davids, V.

Young, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Ypres, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4 p.m.
Clause 17 [Intergovernmental Commission and Safety Authority: supplementary]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 60:
Page 15, leave out lines 46 and 47.
Page 15, line 49, leave out ("that') and insert ("the Intergovernmental").
Page 16, line 3, leave out ("made,").
Page 16, line 4, leave out ("the regulations were validly made or (as the case may be) that").
Page 16, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
Page 16, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert —("(4) Evidence of any direction issued by the Intergovernmental").
Page 16, line 22, leave out ("regulations so made or (as the case may be) of").
Page 16, line 26, leave out ("regulations so made or (as the case may be) of)".
Page 16, line 28, leave out ("those regulations or (as the case may be) or).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 52 to 60 inclusive and speak to Amendments Nos. 71, 75 and 79. The Bill, as presently drafted, does not accurately reflect the legal status of regulation of the Intergovernmental Commission. Article 10 of the treaty provides that functions of the commission shall include drawing up or participating in the preparation of regulations applicable to any aspect of the fixed link. The safety authority will assist the commission to draw up any regulations on safety matters. It will then be for the Government to adopt the regulations so drawn up if they wish. The references in the Bill to regulations being made by the commission are misleading. In fact, regulations drawn up by the commission will become law in the United Kingdom only when promulgated by orders under Clause 11. The text of the regulation will be set out in extenso in the order, or in an annex to the order, and Clause 33 provides that the order shall be made by statutory instrument.
Consequently the order and the regulation will be admissible in legal proceedings without further proof and it will not be possible to challenge the validity of the regulation. Accordingly, the references to regulations in Clause 17 are superflous and are deleted by the first group of amendments.
Subsection (8) of Clause 20 and subsection (6) of Clause 22 can also be deleted because any inconsistency between a by-law or road traffic order, on the one hand, and the provisions of an order under Clause 11, on the other hand, will be dealt with in the Clause 11 order. There is therefore no need for a separate power to make orders to deal only with inconsistencies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Operation by the Concessionaires]:
[Amendment No. 61 not moved]
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 16, line 44, at end insert—
("(4) No passengers or goods shall be carried for reward through the tunnel system unless the Safety Authority is satisfied that adequate provision has been made by the Concessionaires for—

(a) the safe embarkation and carriage on shuttle trains of persons who are disabled; and

(b) safe the evacuation of such persons from those trains in the event of an emergency occurring in the tunnel system.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 62 seeks to provide for the safe carriage and evacuation of disabled persons from shuttle trains if there is an emergency. Over the years Parliament has taken an enlightened view about providing for the disabled. While the gains have often been slow and modest, gains have been made in areas such as public buildings and public transport. Nowadays there is a greater acceptance in the community that not everyone is wholly fit and able-bodied.
The Eurotunnel has been described as the shuttle element of the fixed link and as a new mode of transport for the 21st century. The Government White Paper described the proposals both as challenging and exciting and as the largest civil engineering project in Europe ever undertaken by the private sector. Therefore would it not be sad if such a massive project proceeded without any due provision for the disabled?
The information so far published has mentioned no special arrangements for dealing with disabled drivers or passengers, especially those needing to use wheelchairs. The disabled drivers and passengers drive on with their wheelchairs stowed in their cars, as is their normal custom. The peculiar problem of the shuttle, for access and evacuation, is space. There is a lack of space between the vehicles, and at the sides of vehicles, which enables doors to be only partially opened. I believe that 45 degrees is the measurement spoken of. I suggest that in those circumstances access will be restricted even for young and able-bodied people.
So far there have been no special proposals for arrangements dealing with disabled drivers or passengers. This is a new scheme; it is not a tried and tested form of transport. In normal conditions it might be possible to erect a wheelchair and evacuate a passenger sitting in it in the one metre clearance on either side of the car. However, if the car door has to be opened more than the suggested 45 degrees it would seriously delay, or more likely block, other passengers seeking to reach exit doors or other

479
wagons, creating even more risk for the disabled person. The exit doors into the tunnel walkway are only 0.6 metres wide. The walkway is only 0.8 metres wide with no guide rails to prevent wheelchairs falling off on to the track in the tunnel. There is no scheme in the world where passengers and petrol vehicles are conveyed together in sealed compartments in tunnels under the sea, at 100 miles an hour.
Fire-fighters, mining and tunnelling engineers are concerned about the unnecessary danger of not segregating people from their vehicles. The evacuation of disabled people would be much more difficult if they were hampered by poor light, or perhaps no lighting, or by smoke, fires and panicking passengers. The most sensible solution would be to provide disabled drivers and passengers with at least separate coaches to sit in during transportation. We are to have a safety commission to sort out the problem, but it seems to me that Parliament is being asked to sign a blank cheque before the safety commission has ever been set up. If the provision of the safe evacuation of the able-bodied has not been addressed at this late stage there is a likelihood that the provision for the disabled could be completely overlooked. At a late stage in the development of the scheme we may find that disabled persons are to be prohibited from using the facilities of the tunnel. In my view, that would be unfair discrimination agaist the disabled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, travelled down with me this morning, but she is unable to be here until later this afternoon because she is chairing a conference at Queen Elizabeth Hall. However, she has asked me to say that she entirely sympathises with and supports the amendment which we are now discussing. She believes, as do I, that the Bill must recognise the need and afford the necessary protection of the disabled. Quick loading, unloading and profitability cannot take precedence over safety. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like to support the amendment but it is a little difficult to expect the Channel Tunnel company to cope with disabled people. The reason is that "disability" is an immensely broad word. The noble Baroness pointed out facts about the tunnel which I freely admit filled me with horror, including the width of the passageways, the handrails and so on. However, to ask the concessionaires to continue until they are satisfied that everything has been done is, at this stage, perhaps going a little too fast. I do not want to make comparisons with boats, aeroplanes and so on because I am sure that everyone is aware that they are there. I suggest that later on, unless the amendment is accepted, something similar but of a more experimental nature be brought forward, perhaps suggesting that the Eurotunnel authorities, to use that dreadful expression, use their best endeavours so that little by little we may discover what is and what is not practicable for the disabled. I feel that there must come a point when a person with a certain degree of disability must either decide to go through the tunnel or not to travel at all.
Baroness Macleod of Borve:I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for bringing this subject forward, especially just now. As my noble friend said, disability is not confined to people in wheelchairs. Disability covers those who are blind, and I feel that they might be in great difficulties. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for airing this problem today. I had rather thought that I should be dead before the Chunnel was ready although I should like to have gone through it. On the other hand, if I thought that I should be stuck in the middle somewhere and could not be rescued, I do not think I would even try it. I hope that the Government will accept this idea of finding out whether it is possible for disabled people to be especially looked after under these regulations
Baroness Lane-Fox:Everything that need be said to support this amendment has been said, but I should like to back it up. It is my belief that provision made at an early stage for wheelchairs is very much more economic than leaving it to chance. That has been proved to be so in other ventures. Therefore I believe it would be all to the good if the Government would reconsider this.
Lord Brougham and Vaux:I appreciate the need to look after the disabled—and as my noble friend Lady Macleod said, this does not just mean those who are in wheelchairs—but Eurotunnel has done a lot of work in identifying the needs of disabled people. It has established several user groups both to assist in the design process and as a means of communication with potential users. A representative of the United Kingdom Access Committee for the Disabled has attended the private vehicles user group. This group met on half a dozen occasions during the formulation of the outline design for the system.
The main features of provision for the disabled are. first, that on entering the Eurotunnel system and paying their tolls the disabled users will be requested to identify themselves to the toll-booth operators. This identification will be encoded on the integral ticket which will be used to guide users through the system. The disabled will be allocated to convenient spots in the system so that they can be easily got out if the need arises.
Lord Underhill:I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said. I was reading through the report of the Select Committee while the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was speaking, and I looked again at Appendix 12, which is a memorandum on safety submitted by Eurotunnel. Strangely enough, I cannot see any reference there to the disabled. There is reference to evacuation and there is another section which deals with passenger evacuation. I am certain it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could elaborate on what has been said and say definitely whether further arrangements have been made between Eurotunnel and the concessionaires for the carriage of disabled people. No one would disagree that efforts should be made to make special provision for disabled passengers. Obviously before any passengers or goods are carried the problem of safe evacuation must be properly considered.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I am sure we all agree that it would be desirable that disabled people should be able to take advantage of the tunnel system when it comes into being. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, widened the debate slightly to include segregation. I spoke briefly on that subject and made the point that the safety authority is indeed looking at the question already. The noble Baroness rightly said that your Lordships have always taken a special interest in disabled people. So, too, I would claim, does the Department of Transport, because we have well at heart this cause of safe transport facilities for people with disabilities. That is why this amendment has struck a sympathetic chord.
I hope to be able to convince the Committee, and particularly my noble friends, Lord Radnor, Lady Lane-Fox and Lady Macleod, who I very much hope lives long enough to see the completion of this tunnel. I am sure the whole Committee would agree on that in any case. As my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux said, from the outset Eurotunnel has been conscious of the need to ensure proper provision for people with disabilities who will be travelling in vehicles, like all passengers on the shuttle. In their original proposals submitted in October 1985 the concessionaires undertook that:
"having been informed of the presence of physically handicapped persons, the on-train attendant staff on shuttle trains will suitably locate such persons on their train to facilitate their detrainment in the event of emergency".
I hasten to add that the word "detrainment" was not mine. As I understand it, Eurotunnel will invite persons with disabilities to identify themselves at the toll booth and their ticket will be specially marked to enable the train attendants to identify their vehicles so that they can be loaded on the end wagons of each rake— in other words, as near to the doors as possible—from which rapid evacuation of passengers would be possible.
Eurotunnel is working closely with representatives of organisations for disabled people to establish their requirements and see how they can best be met. I have here a copy of a letter from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (Radar) to Eurotunnel, which says:
"The measures you have taken to accommodate disabled passengers are extremely encouraging. I am particularly grateful for your suggestion of a meeting later in the year to examine the proposals in detail and I look forward to attending it".
So not only are they encouraged so far, but discussions are continuing.
On the more general points of segregation, access and so on, the safety authority will of course be looking very carefully at Eurotunnel's proposals for transporting and evacuating disabled passengers. If the authority is not satisfied that safe arrangements are being made for all passengers, there can be no question of the tunnel being opened to the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked why the Select Committee did not look at this, or at least he said that it was not in the memorandum. The answer is that the representatives of disabled bodies did not petition; in other words, I think they are satisfied with the arrangements that are going to be made.
Lord Underhill: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I was not questioning whether the Select Committee had considered this, but on the safety aspect Appendix 12, the memorandum by Eurotunnel which was submitted to the Select Committee, contained no reference to it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I take the point, but I have said that Eurotunnel is working extremely hard on the matter at the moment. During the assessment of the four rival fixed-link schemes the Government received a number of representations from groups representing disabled travellers. Shortly after the decision was taken in January 1986 to award the concession to the promoters of the Eurotunnel scheme, the Department of Transport made contact with these groups to ensure that they had direct access to the designers of the tunnel system so that their needs could be met. The Government will continue to satisfy themselves that these essential interests are looked after, but, as I said, my understanding is that they are receiving every consideration from Eurotunnel.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having brought this subject forward. I know it is very close to the hearts of many of your Lordships, but I hope the Committee will agree that a great deal is being done at the moment.
Lord Tordoff: If a good deal is already being done that falls within the remit of this amendment, why are the Government not throwing their hats in the air and accepting the amendment immediately? Although the Minister has not yet rejected the amendment, my impression is that he has not been exactly enthusiastic about it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I am not enthusiastic about the amendment because, as in all such cases, it is not always possible to put in a Bill—indeed sometimes things can be made too difficult through being put in a Bill—exactly what everybody would like to see happen. It may cause difficulties and involve one in litigation, and so on. I think that what is being done outside the Bill is the better way.
Lord Mulley:Sometimes, listening to the Minister, I wonder why there is a Bill at all, especially when he suggests that if this amendment is incorporated in the Bill someone might take the matter to litigation, or that it may present difficulties to our friends in France. We have a Bill consisting of I do not know how many pages. Surely the development of facilities for disabled persons is a matter of considerable substance and one in which this Chamber has properly taken great interest.
I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on two points. First, it has been said many times during our proceedings that we have to take a view over a period of at least six years and possibly beyond. The representatives of the disabled may have received all kinds of assurances but if there is no legislative provision, how do we know that those promises will be redeemed by other people in other circumstances in the distant future?

483
Secondly, although I cannot project or forecast the trend of events, I think it not unlikely that if the tunnel proves a great success there will be no alternative way for passengers to cross the Channel. One must face up to the possibility that there may not be the alternative of crossing by ferry. It does not seem reasonable that we should ask disabled people who want to visit the north of France to put up with flying first to Paris.
If the Minister agrees with the tenor of the amendment, why cannot he accept it? If, on advice, he finds the wording not 100 per cent. satisfactory, there will be the opportunity to amend it accordingly during the further stages of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she should press the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway:I had not intended to speak. But there is a perfectly valid reason why this amendment should not be included in the Bill in its present form. In fact, there are two reasons. First, this type of provision for the disabled in other Transport Acts has been made by way of a code of practice introduced into the Bill to give such effect as is thought right. The second reason concerns the intention about no passengers or goods being carried. Why should goods not be carried if proper provision is not made for disabled persons? I suggest that, in the form in which it is drafted, the whole concept is inappropriate for inclusion in the statute.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:Perhaps I may briefly answer the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. Those are undertakings that have been given by Eurotunnel. It may be some years hence before the tunnel is built. But, as I have said previously, these arrangements are being made right now, and the shuttles are being designed now. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for pointing out one or two difficulties with this amendment. Another problem is that it may not be possible to carry people with all kinds of disability, as is the case on many forms of transport at the moment. If that were so, it may be difficult to put into legal wording a binding obligation when best endeavours are appropriate. That is the situation at the moment. Eurotunnel is making best endeavours. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that my observations are sufficient to reassure her.
Baroness Stedman:I am grateful to the Minister and to other Members of the Committee who have spoken to this amendment. When drafting amendments from the Opposition Benches it is always unfortunate to be told afterwards that they are defective since one does not have at one's elbow the skill of the parliamentary draftsman. I accept that perhaps my amendment is not plain enough and that the speech in support of it was not clear enough. All kinds of disability are covered; we need to look at the matter.
The Minister has neither rejected nor accepted the amendment. He has made sympathetic noises. We have heard about codes of practice to cover the disabled in relation to other Bills. Is there likely to be
484
a code of practice for the disabled in so far as concerns the operation of the Channel Tunnel? If so, when such code is in being, will it be possible to have further information about co-operation between RADAR and other organisations and about the experience of people with all kinds of disabilities—the walking disabled, people who are blind, deaf or partially sighted and those confined to wheel chairs?
At this stage I should like to think further about the amendment and read what the Minister and other Members of the Committee have said. I shall perhaps come back at Report Stage unless by that time the Minister has become sufficiently sympathetic to have put forward an amendment of his own. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Sefton of Garston:I should like to speak on whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill. It deals in the main with the safety aspect of the operation of the tunnel. Last Thursday I had a discussion outside the Chamber in relation to other tunnels in the United Kingdom. The point was made to me about the responsibility of the authority that operated a tunnel to pay compensation to anybody who had been adversely affected by either its operation or construction. I asked the Minister for a reply to that point by today. I understand that this may not be possible; at any rate I certainly have not yet received a reply. I also asked for information as to the obligation on the concessionaires to insure against all risks in the tunnel.
I do not want to act as I did on Thursday and put down a manuscript amendment. I want to give the Minister time to consider this important issue. The Channel Tunnel is probably the largest project that has ever been undertaken by the private sector. It involves more people at one time than anything undertaken and exposes them to some risks. In my view, if we are to have a tunnel, then the project should be organised, built and run by the Government. We should then know that if anything were to go wrong the Government would stand surety for any damage during the construction or operation.
Such surety falls into two main categories. First, there is the question of any person using the tunnel being adversely affected by its operation. That could amount to damage in the region of millions of pounds. The other point is that if something goes wrong in the construction of the tunnel, then, under certain clauses, the Government should pick up the tab for operating it over a period of time. I think that it is right that this Chamber, and Parliament, should know exactly where the law stands on those two points. It will be no good anyone coming along after the event and saying that the responsibility for compensation should fall on Eurotunnel. Eurotunnel will not have any assets unless one can call the tunnel itself an asset and it may well have broken down by then. Eurotunnel certainly will not have any reserves for the first 10 years.

485
I think that somewhere in this Bill there should be imposed on the concessionaires a duty to insure against such risks. I know that during the building operations under our own law there will be a requirement to insure and to pay workmen's compensation and that kind of thing, but I do not know how far it goes. I was tempted to put down a so-called manuscript amendment designating the fact that these concessionaires should carry out two forms of insurance, first, to insure individuals against any risk and, secondly, to insure the Government and to indemnify them against any costs they may incur in picking up the tab, as described in certain clauses.
I shall not move an amendment now, but I understand that the procedure of the House is that I must raise the matter now in order to table an amendment at a later stage, either at Report stage or on Third Reading. If I cannot do so, I should be obliged if someone would tell me. Can the Minister now give me a reply as to whether there is any requirement for that kind of insurance?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I shall not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, about his faith in the public versus the private sectors, but I do not think he would expect me to. If he would care to read Annex III to the concession agreement, which is Cmnd. 9769, this sets out the obligations of the concessionaires to take out certain kinds of insurance against the liabilities on the Government.
We also understand that the concessionaires have insurance of the kind to which the noble Lord referred at the beginning. I am obtaining details of these and will write to the noble Lord before the next stage. I hope that is sufficient.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord Somers Lord Somers moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Rabies prevention measures
. The Concessionaires shall not have power to continue their scheduled works after the date on which the United Kingdom portion of any of the tunnels mentioned in section 1(7)(a) of this Act has been linked with the French portion of such tunnels, unless the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is satisfied that adequate protective measures for the prevention of the entry of rabies into the United Kingdom are then in place at all points of disembarkment in the United Kingdom from trains using such tunnels.")
The noble Lord said:The purpose of this amendment is sufficiently obvious to eliminate the need for a lengthy explanation. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that the amendment as it stands is incomplete and I shall explain this later on. I think there cannot be very many people who do not recognise that rabies is an extremely serious disease. Happily, we have eliminated it pretty well from our country but I think its seriousness can be realised if we consider that in India, where there is no control at all, about 20,000 people die each year from this disease alone.
We do not want to run the risk of allowing it to come into our country again and that is why I have put down this amendment, but it is incomplete for this reason. The Bill provides purely for animals which are imported, but one must remember that
486
rabies can be carried by other animals. The fox is one, rats are another and, surprisingly enough, bats can also carry it. The moment the two tunnels join, those animals can get through from one country to another and France is by no means free of rabies. Therefore I propose at the Report stage to move a similar amendment but with the provision that perhaps a small-mesh wire screen should be erected at each end, at any rate during the construction of the tunnel, so that there will not be the risk of those wild animals getting through.
Nonetheless, I feel that the provision for quarantine houses at the points of disembarkment is sufficiently important for us to ask the Government to accept the amendment now and we shall put others later. I think that is all the information I need to give. I beg to move.
Lord Ampthill:Perhaps I might correct my noble friend on two very small points of detail. Curiously enough, in Europe rats do not carry rabies. There has been one instance of a bat having rabies. It came on a ship from South America and arrived in Holland. On those two points I think honestly my noble friend can be reassured.
As far as mesh fences are concerned, if he cares to read either the section of the report which is devoted to it or Appendix 13 to the report, he will discover that mesh fences are being constructed all the way round the terminal in France, buried to a depth of at least 1 metre. There will be grids not only for access to the terminal area but also to the tunnels themselves. Beneath those cattle grids will he mesh fences, as my noble friend mentioned, which will be electrified and therefore will cause the instant demise of any animal which penetrates the tunnel. I honestly believe that this amendment is not necessary.
Baroness Phillips: I should just like to pick up the points made by the noble Lord in relation to the mesh and electrification. I have, as I am sure have other Members of the Committee, been on a platform in the London Underground, Tottenham Court Road to be precise, and quite recently seen two rats very calmly sitting there in the middle of a highly electrified line. We must dispose of the idea that the rat, if it intends to get through, will not do so. I should like to have some reassurance from the noble Lord on where the information is to be found that these animals do not carry rabies. How do we know that? This little island has been the one place which seems to have been immune from rabies in the whole of Europe and there must be a reason.
Lord Ampthill:If I may answer that very small point, the evidence comes in Appendix 13 of our report from Mr. Crowley, who is without question the greatest living expert on this subject.
Lord Holderness: So far as bats are concerned, I was surprised to learn that the construction of the tunnel would not necessarily afford a means of travel particularly acceptable to bats, because they have already been known to fly to Kent from the Pas de Calais over the sea.
Lord Underhill: It will be recalled that at our Second Reading debate on this Bill the two matters to which considerable attention was given were, first, safety and, secondly, rabies. Frankly, I am satisfied. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, the chairman of the Select Committee, referred to Appendix 13, and, speaking for myself, having very carefully read the Eurotunnel memo, which is Appendix 13, I am satisfied with all the steps which Eurotunnel proposes to take.
The only question I would ask is this. Will the protective netting fences, or whatever we call them, be up during the period of construction or will they wait until the tunnel is completed? It seems to me that one of the points covered by the amendment is the importance of animals getting in during the period of construction.
Lord Tordoff: If I may echo what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, the reason why I put my name to this amendment is not that I was worried about bats—especially being a Member of your Lordships' House—but because of the interim period when the tunnel is partly constructed. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, has an important point in relation to whether the protective measures would be in place at the right time. That is the point on which we seek reassurance from the Minister.
Lord Beloff: I feel that, as has been pointed out, Appendix 13 and the other measures proposed to be taken by Eurotunnel are an adequate safeguard against animals finding their own way. However, I remain worried about part of the amendment now before us; that is to say, animals carried to a number of different railway destinations. It is probably very difficult to have adequate provision at all the railway stations at which trains may call in the end. A far simpler method of dealing with this severe risk is to say that no live animals may be transported on vehicles or trains travelling through the tunnel.
The risks which emerge from time to time in this country are nearly always from people with a demented devotion to domestic pets, who try to circumvent the existing regulations. They are occasionally punished. To my mind they are never punished sufficently severely. I think that perhaps the Government ought to grasp the nettle and suggest to Eurotunnel that the regulations bar the transport of domestic animals through any vehicle or train using the tunnel. It would be a great saving and the people who would be penalised are very few. We have far too many cats and dogs in the country anyhow.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not certain that everyone might agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff. But he is quite right that the main problem from rabies is due to people smuggling in pets. That risk exists at present whether one comes by sea or by air. I believe that small boats present the greatest danger as regards bringing in animals.
The Government have made abundantly clear on many occasions that they attach the highest priority to ensuring that the fixed link does not increase the risk of rabies entering the United Kingdom. We are very well aware of the public concern about this issue,
488
and I can assure the Committee that nothing will be permitted to jeopardise this country's much prized freedom from rabies. The invitation to the promoters made explicit reference to the need for adequate protective measures, and that aspect of Eurotunnel's proposal was given very careful consideration before it was selected in January 1986.
The Government will impose controls in three important areas. First, the importation of rabies susceptible animals through the Channel Tunnel is dependent upon the Cheriton terminal being authorised by order as an approved port of entry; as yet the concessionaires have not yet applied for approval. Secondly, checks will be carried out by the frontier authorities, in particular Customs, to prevent the illegal importation of animals into this country as is the case at other ports and airports at the present time. Thirdly, stringent requirements will be imposed to prevent wild or stray animals entering or passing through the tunnel. Those are the wire mesh fences to which the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and others have referred.
As has been said, protection against rabies was considered at length and thoroughly examined by the Select Committee of this House. Having heard the evidence of Mr. Crowley, described by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, as the greatest living expert on rabies, the committee concluded that the tunnel would not increase the risk of rabies entering the United Kingdom over and above that which exists at present. Mr. Crowley's memorandum outlining the protective measures that the concessionaires consider would need to be taken is set out in full in Appendix 13 to the committee's special report.
The arrangements are now being worked out in detail with the appropriate authorities in the United Kingdom, in particular the Ministry of Agriculture whose approval of the arrangements must he obtained. A senior official of the Ministry has been appointed as a member of the inter-governmental commission to ensure that it gives full attention to this matter. Appropriate protective arrangements must be in place when the first tunnel from England joins up with the tunnel from France. That is the reassurance that the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, were looking for. I can assure the noble Lords and the Committee that they will indeed be in place.
I cannot today describe in detail what measures will be taken by the frontier departments to prevent animals or other contraband being smuggled through the tunnels by workmen during the construction phase; nor can I describe in detail the precise rules and procedures that Eurotunnel's contractors will be required to introduce to ensure that edible waste does not arise in the tunnels. Those details have yet to be worked out but the United Kingdom authorities concerned do not lack the necessary powers under the concession agreement to impose any requirements that they will need to impose. If their powers under existing legislation are insufficient the requirements will be imposed by orders made under Clause 11 of the Bill.
There is no difference between the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the Government over the need for

489
stringent anti-rabies controls in the fixed link throughout the life of the concession. Nor, I hope, does the noble Lord doubt the Government's determination to ensure that such controls are installed and maintained. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will not allow extraneous considerations such as the cost to Eurotunnel to influence their requirements.
The question for the Committee this afternoon is whether anything would be gained by including this new clause in the Bill. I have to say that nothing at all would be gained. The Government have given firm assurances that the anti-rabies controls for the fixed link will have to satisfy the Ministry of Agriculture in detail. The new clause therefore is superfluous, but I hope that what I have said and the assurances that I have been able to give this afternoon mean that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Somers: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the assurances he has given. Before I withdraw the amendment, can the noble Lord tell me whether I am right in thinking that there is sufficient protection during the course of construction of the tunnel? When it is finished there will not be much likelihood of foxes and other animals finding their way through. However, during the construction of the tunnel, there will be a great deal of rough earth and holes where rats could make their homes. It is rather more important at that stage to see that there is adequate protection.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I attempted to cover that point. The important point is that the protection must be in place when the first connection is made and when the first tunnel is joined together.
Lord Somers: I am sorry. I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said the first time. In that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 64:
After the Clause 18 insert the following new clause:
("Restriction on sale or alcohol and tobacco
.—No alcoholic beverages or tobacco products shall be offered for sale in the tunnel system unless arrangements are in force for ensuring that passengers on shuttle trains do not have access to their vehicles during the passage of those trains through that system.").
The noble Lord said: I have some recollection of hearing discussions about arrangements for providing certain refreshments for persons on the shuttle trains. Whether or not duty free facilities will still exist in 1993 or whether, technically there will be a land frontier from the time the tunnel operates which, under existing Community regulations, would rule out the possibility of there being duty free products available, it seems to be wholly undesirable that people should go to or from points of sale on the trains or that the products should be provided beforehand in premises where people are waiting to get on the trains or where they make their exits. Unfortunately, history has shown that much of the trouble on ferries and on trains travelling to football
490
matches on the Continent has arisen because of excessive consumption of alcohol by young people.
Passage will be fairly swift once passengers board the trains although I do not know what the chaos at busy times will be like while one waits to get one's car on the shuttle. We shall have to wait and find that out. As noble Lords argued earlier, it would he desirable in the interests of safety generally and not just on this rather narrow point that there should he segregation of passengers from their vehicles during the passage through the tunnel. We understand that the safety authority will, if it deems fit, look carefully at that particular question.
As the noble Lord said so rightly when discussing the previous amendment, it is one thing to provide by regulations, law, or whatever, that this or that risk shall not be taken but there are always people who ignore it. While I personally have great sympathy with and shall support the amendment to be moved later by my noble friend Lord Ennals concerning the prohibiting of smoking in the tunnel system, I feel that there will be many people who will ignore that. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, in the same manner persons devoted to their pets have tried to smuggle them into this country. That is not only a breach of law but is also a great danger to public health.
Therefore, it is not simply a question of having regulations. It is also a question of making sure that alcoholic beverages and tobacco products are not available, which would make it a bit more difficult for such people. I can of course see at once that persons might smuggle such products if they intended to break the law. Nevertheless, since they will be sitting in their vehicles and on top of a tank of petrol, I believe it would be much better if smoking were not allowed.
In addition, we have the problem of people in caravans. I realise that on our roads at present there are people who sometimes sleep in caravans when they are on the move, although it is against the regulations. I am sure that, similarly, there will be people who decide that they have waited a long time and that they will make a cup of tea while they are crossing the Channel. The consequences of such behaviour could be horrific. If, for whatever reason, segregation is not possible, we should at least try to minimise the dangers of irresponsible actions in defiance of the regulations by making alcohol and tobacco less readily available. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I do not see what the exception in the amendment hopes to achieve when it states:
"unless arrangements are in force for ensuring that passengers on tunnel trains do not have access to their vehicles during the passage".
It is highly unlikely that they will. But in any case, if they have access to alcohol during the passage, they may not be in a fit state to drive when they get there. That seems to me to be the important point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I find this new clause very unreasonable. As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has said, there is no connection between the sale of alcohol or tobacco within the tunnel system—and I remind noble Lords that the tunnel system is defined to include the terminals and everything else—and the

491
question of whether passengers should be segregated from their vehicles. No one wishes drivers to be drunk in charge of vehicles in the tunnel system any more than on the roads. Nor will smoking be permitted within the tunnel itself. However, these matters will be dealt with by the application of regulations or by-laws. I do not think that they warrant an insistence on segregation or a ban on sales.
We have discussed the issue of segregation. But the issue of whether or not passengers should be segregated from their vehicles has been considered in great depth by the Select Committee. It accepted that the safety authority would evaluate the measures proposed to it and would not impose specific solutions to a safety problem. At the present stage the safety authority has made clear its view that there is no reason to believe that it would be inherently unsafe to permit passengers to remain with their vehicles on shuttle trains.
If the safety authority ultimately confirms that passengers can travel with their vehicles, the proposed clause would prevent Eurotunnel from providing duty-free facilities for passengers and even from providing a full refreshment service for passengers and workers at terminals. I am not sure whether this amendment is intended to put Eurotunnel at a competitive disadvantage. However, I can assure noble Lords that it will do so. Nobody doubts that there will be occasions when Eurotunnel will have to deny entry to coach-loads of people who are evidently drunk and a danger to safety. It is hardly surprising that we have not decided exactly how to make provision for that. British Rail, for example, can ban alcohol on particular trains.
Clause 11 of the Bill, to which the House has already agreed, is quite wide enough to allow appropriate powers to be taken and regulations to be imposed. The same applies to those who appear liable to flout the smoking rules. I hope that the House will not agree to the amendment. I think it is a back-door method of denying Eurotunnel the possibility of duty-free sales, which would certainly put it at a competitive disadvantage as regards the ferry companies, concerning which we have already heard quite a lot.
Lord Mulley: Can the Minister confirm that from the point of view of EC regulations, this will be a sea and not a land crossing? As the Minister well knows, when one crosses from one EC country to another by land, there are no duty-free facilities. I am sure that the countries concerned would be happy to provide them if the EC laws permitted. However, they do not. I should have thought that if the tunnel crossing is a land crossing, the question of duty-free facilities would not arise.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Whether or not the question of duty-free facilities arises with regard to the tunnel, there are many years to go before the tunnel opens. Whether such duty-free facilities will then exist in Europe, one does not know. However, this amendment would go further and would not allow Eurotunnel to sell alcohol or tobacco in the
492
staff canteen at the inland clearance depot at Ashford. I think that is rather unreasonable.
Lord Mulley: If the Minister thinks it is so unreasonable, I shall not press the amendment. However, when he says that refreshments could not be provided, I take it very ill that when he speaks of allowing workers or anyone else to have refreshment, he seems to believe that one cannot be refreshed without alcohol or being able to smoke. I believe that one can refresh oneself adequately without either of those.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Byelaws of the Concessionaires]:
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 17, line 7, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendments Nos. 66 and 69 together. Clearly, Amendment No. 66 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 69. The effect of the two amendments, as will be seen, is to change what is in the Bill at Clause 19(1), which says:
"The Concessionaires may make byelaws … prohibiting the smoking of tobacco in any such premises, place or vehicle".
If this amendment were to be carried, as I hope it will, it would change the word "will" to "shall" so that there was a prohibition on the act of smoking tobacco in any such premises, place or vehicle. This amendment has nothing to do with the duty-free sales. It is simply a question of how people behave in the tunnel in relation to smoking materials. The smoking material which most concerns me is cigarettes, although I have broadened the amendment to include all types of smoking materials.
In dealing with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mulley, the Minister said that there would be no cigarette smoking in the tunnel itself. I found that a reassuring statement. However, I do not know the basis on which it was made. As things stand now in the Bill, unless I have misunderstood it, the concessionaires may make by-laws but equally they may not make by-laws. If there are some concessionaires who think that they will have the edge on others if they permit smoking, then that may be a particular attraction to the smoking community to travel on the vehicles or in the trains provided by those concessionaires.
The Minister said that Clause 19 was wide enough to permit such a prohibition. It is right that it is wide enough to contain the prohibition. However, it does not contain the prohibition. I want to argue that it should be quite firmly stated here and now in the Bill that there shall be no smoking in any of the areas that I have sought to define in Amendment No. 69. I think the reasons are very clear. First, in terms of safety we have all too much knowledge of fires that have been caused in various situations as a result of smoking, whether it is in all sorts and types of homes or whether it is within hostels in which many people have been killed, because someone has carelessly

493
allowed a cigarette to drop on the floor, to burn into a sofa or what-have-you.
I suppose that our most striking example was the terrible fire at Bradford City Football Club. The evidence there seemed to be that the fire started from cigarettes that were dropped from the seating, though I do not think that that has been proved. However, that seems to be the most likely cause.
The consequences of a fire in the tunnel are absolutely horrendous. If there were a fire, I do not know what would be the method of controlling the air going from one side to the other or what would be the effect in the tunnel of pushing hot air forwards and backwards. However, I suspect that, whether a fire affected vehicles carrying personnel or vehicles carrying freight, it could be far worse than a fire elsewhere. That is why in other parts of the Bill, and in the report of your Lordships' Committee, a great deal of trouble has been taken with safety. But all that this has led to is that the concessionaires may make by-laws.
I think that the nearest comparison to the situation in the tunnel is the London Underground. We are all aware of the beneficial effects of the simple decision that there should be no smoking on the London Underground. The result has been that the trains have been cleaner and more pleasant for people to travel in. One of the most remarkable aspects is that although the decision was not backed by law, it was accepted and has been very largely fulfilled. That is quite remarkable. If something is required then people carry out the requirement.
There is also the health factor, but I assure your Lordships that I shall not go into the health effects both for the smokers and for those who are close to smokers and who are forced to inhale the smoke from other people's cigarettes or pipes. It is a condition known as secondary smoking. However, we now have the situation, which I think will be of great satisfaction to both sides of the Committee, that the very substantial majority of adults do not smoke.
What is most worrying is the number of youngsters, boys and girls still at school and aged 10, 11 or 12, who like smoking. I can well imagine that youngsters starting on their holiday and going on this exciting trip under the Channel to Europe would think it a marvellous opportunity—unless it was against the law—for them to smoke. So I submit that there are very strong arguments indeed for increasing restraints on smoking in trains as elsewhere.
Among those who want to see more restraints are a very significant number of smokers who want to give up smoking but who find it difficult when others are doing so. That is one reason why the banning of smoking on the Underground has been of help to people who smoke and want to give it up. Studies suggest that about one-third of those who smoke genuinely want to give it up, but find it more difficult if there are smokers around them.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel that this is an amendment that he can accept. His brief may say "Accept nothing". That certainly has been the situation so far. This is in no way a party political matter, but it is a matter of common sense which affects the safety and health of our people. If the
494
hopes are that a very large number of people will go through the tunnel, then I believe that if the law says that they may not smoke it will be as successful as it is on the London Underground.
I want to see an obligation on the concessionaires. The important thing is to get this right at the beginning so that the issue does not arise again. I hope that the Minister will not oppose the amendment. I feel certain that if he does and if there is a Division—because I would wish to press the amendment to a vote—there ought to be a free vote so that noble Lords will feel at liberty to vote in the way that motivates them. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I have every sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is seeking to achieve. However, I wonder whether again he does not go a little too far by including any premises in the tunnel system, because that takes us back to the workers' canteen at Ashford. As regards his suggestion that this is not a party political matter and is therefore a common sense matter, that may apply to his party but it certainly does not apply on these Benches.
Lord Mountevans: Before the Minister replies I wonder whether he could clarify some thoughts for me. It is my understanding that an aircraft belonging to a British company can be 1,200 miles from any source of safety, and yet it is also my understanding that there is no statutory requirement under British law or under any other law for that aircraft to be subject to any ban on smoking. I wonder whether we really should be looking at this now and whether the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is not a little late. He should have considered this matter in many other contexts many years ago. I understand that on trans-Pacific sections one can have 400 people on an aircraft. There is no requirement to segregate smokers from non-smokers. There is only the lightest of requirements to ban smoking when the commander of an aircraft deems it suitable to do so, such as on take-off and landing.
Therefore, I ask myself: why is the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suddenly applying this argument uniquely to the Channel Tunnel operation? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the ban is extremely wide and I think that the noble Lord the Minister dealt with it in answering the previous amendment, when he reminded us of the definition of "system". I believe that I could go through the tunnel, or even considerably further than through the tunnel, without a cigarette, to which I am partial. I believe that the Minister may also have to declare an interest. However, I do not think that this ban is called for or justified. I do not feel it is justified because we are applying safety standards which we do not apply already in far more vulnerable circumstances and also because it would be an invasion of private liberty.
Earl Attlee: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has been gilding the lily. To equate a terrible fire at a football stadium, where the seats were made of wood and where under the seats there was rubbish from many years ago, with a modern concrete and steel tunnel is really ridiculous. The other point which

495
made me smile was the idea that someone travelling on the Underground, and therefore not smoking for half-an-hour, would be helped to give up smoking. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and I think that this is tommy-rot. I can go far longer than an hour without smoking, although I might bite my nails, but having gone for one hour will certainly not make me any more likely to give up smoking. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Tordoff that the amendment is drawn far too widely. To stop people who have anything to do with the tunnel from smoking, or even taking alcohol as refreshment, is really stupid. Having said that, I agree for many reasons that it would be very wise to prohibit smoking within the confines of the tunnel, but not for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have great sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said. The trouble is that the system is defined in Clause 1(7), which not only refers to the tunnels but the Channel as well. That means you are going to ban smoking in restaurants, picnic areas and in the offices. The best way would be to make regulations under Clause 11, and such a course of action would enable more severe penalties to apply than would be the case if enforced by by-laws. I consider, therefore, that this amendment is unnecessary and that it would not really work.
Baroness Phillips: I should just like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, in which he asked, "Why do it now, why not do it before?" That seems a very curious argument. If it is found that something is not entirely satisfactory and cannot immediately be changed there seems to be no reason why it cannot be changed before construction.
It was a pilot who said to me one day that he was not happy with the carriage of alcohol on board an aeroplane. An aeroplane is a contained vehicle, as we know, and alcohol is highly combustible. It seems to me that we should emphasise the safety considerations about tobacco and smoking rather than people being persuaded to give it up, which is really not so important in this context. It is the danger that comes from smoking and cigarettes that is important. One can imagine how horrific an accident could be in an enclosed area like a vehicle going through a tunnel. I think it is certainly no argument to say that because it has not been done before it cannot be done now. No laws would be made at all if we accepted that argument. I feel that is certainly irrelevant and I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Mountevans: The noble Baroness supports a party which has on numerous occasions, over many years, tried to bring in laws not on the basis of seeking to change what is established but seeking to influence what is to come. I was a little amused by her reference to alcohol, because this amendment relates to tobacco. If you wish to ban smoking outright then
496
you should do it. To start tinkering with a one-off opportunity like this—the Channel Tunnel—seems to be totally the wrong way of doing it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This is in danger of becoming a debate between smokers and anti-smokers. I must confess to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that I am a smoker but I am probably among the one-third of those mentioned who would like to give it up. I do not think that banning me from smoking within the whole of the tunnel system would help me very much to do that.
The Government certainly agree, as we have made clear on many occasions, that the prospect of a fire within the tunnel or on board a shuttle train, is horrendous. The Government would expect Eurotunnel to take every proper precaution, including the prohibition of smoking within areas of any special fire risk. Where I disagree with the noble Lord's amendment as have other noble Lords and as I said on the previous amendment—is that this would actually ban smoking throughout the tunnel system as defined. That would include, as I also said on the last amendment, the workers' canteen at the inland clearance depot at Ashford. We consider that to be unreasonable. If the noble Lord wishes to attack smoking in that way, fair enough, but I do not see that this Bill should be used to ban smoking in such places.
I should make it absolutely clear that Eurotunnel will be expected to bring forward by-laws dealing with smoking and such by-laws will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State for Transport under Clause 20. If the by-laws Eurotunnel propose are not satisfactory, they will be expected to bring forward revised proposals. I also draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, during the passage of the Bill, amendments have been made to Clause 19 to improve the enforcement of by-laws. The maximum fine has been raised to level 4 and there are now specific powers to take direct action to restrain offenders.
Nevertheless, I also emphasise that by-laws are only one weapon, and by no means the most important, in the Government's armoury to implement safety requirements and enforce safe behaviour in the tunnel system. In the first instance it will be for the safety authority to consider the safety measures proposed by Eurotunnel, in particular those relating to measures against fire, and to satisfy themselves that those measures are adequate. If not, the authority would clearly refuse to recommend approval of those proposals. However, it is possible that some aspects would be regarded as being of such importance, and proper for action on a bi-national basis, that the safety authority would recommend the drawing up of regulations by the Intergovernmental Commission. The Secretary of State will then have the responsibility of implementing those regulations in the United Kingdom by an order under Clause 11. By-laws, which directly involve the concessionaires, will undoubtedly have a very important role to play, but they are only part of the story.
In other words, the noble Lord's amendments accurately identify an area of great importance in

497
ensuring the safety of users of the tunnel. But to lay down in this Bill what by-laws should say, first, overlooks the question of precisely where the ban should apply and, secondly, does not take into account the complementary roles foreseen for by-laws on the one hand and Clause 11 orders implementing recommendations of the Intergovernmental Commission and the safety authority on the other.
A number of points were made in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned smoking on aircraft. So far as I know there are no laws to prevent smoking on aircraft, but, of course, smoking is banned from the moment one leaves the terminal building to the time the aircraft has taken off and reached a safe height. That can be at least half an hour in certain cases; in other words, the same length of time as it will take to get through the tunnel itself.
Speaking personally, if I may, it is more effective to ban smoking only when you really need to ban it—such as while an aircraft is taking off or during the passage of a train through a tunnel system—than to have a blanket ban over a much wider area. If a lorry driver is banned from smoking in the cab of his lorry at the inland clearance depot at Ashford, he is going to think twice about obeying that instruction. He might think twice about obeying that instruction when he arrives on board the shuttle. If the ban is limited to the places where it is really necessary I feel there is a much better chance of enforcing it—and I speak as a smoker myself.
If the noble Lord intends to press this matter to a Division I hope that the Committee will not support him, because I believe that the way we are going to deal with it is better than a blanket ban.
Lord Ennals: I am most grateful to all who have taken part in this discussion and I am glad that the Minister rose when he did. As he rightly said, it was becoming a discussion between the smokers who wanted their rights protected and the non-smokers. That is not at all the way in which 1 think it should be done. I agree with those, including the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the Minister himself, who have said, that I have drawn my amendment too widely. There are a number of situations which would be covered by my amendment which I do not think should be covered. There are more of them than simply workers' canteens. What I want to establish is that it is not just to be left to the concessionaires to decide whether there should be a limitation on smoking, whether it is in the tunnel alone or during some other part of the journey. I believe that this Parliament should decide that. When the Minister was speaking I felt from what he said that it was quite unlikely that the concessionaires would make by-laws to be restrictive in terms of smoking.
I shall in a moment reply to one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, but perhaps it might be helpful if I first indicated what I intend to do at the end of this debate, unless something new happens. I wish to press this amendment with the absolute assurance on my part—no doubt also on the part of the Minister, and I should be very happy to collaborate with him—that
498
on Report we would narrow it down and confine it to what we think is right.
The issue is whether we are satisfied that the concessionaires will make by-laws about any aspect of smoking in any part of the premises, the tunnel and so forth. There will be no problem in getting the requirement right if the amendment is carried. I offer all possible help in ensuring that we have a proposal which will be agreed right across the board in Committee.
I shall touch on three points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. He referred first to aircraft. The Minister has dealt with that. As he said, before boarding an aircraft there is an absolute ban upon smoking. I have never seen anyone seek to break that ban. If there were merely a by-law people might take the risk and decide that they wanted a puff before they boarded the aircraft. The instructions are rather like those relating to seat belts. People carry out those instructions. That is an argument I used in another place when finally getting through part of the compulsory seat belt Bill.
The noble Lord's second point was that the proposal is a bit late. Someone else might say that it is a little early. It is the right time. This is the time when the Committee is considering what requirements should be laid down. If I am a little late, when should I have started? I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, when I should have proposed the amendment. I have had no other opportunity to do so, so it is not a bit late. If he means that I should have sought to ban smoking from aircraft and all sorts of other places, well, that may happen in the future. I do not know, but I am not trying to do it on this Bill. I think I am doing it at the right time. The noble Lord said that I was suddenly applying the ban to the tunnel. As I have said, this is my only opportunity. I fear that if the Committee does not accept the amendment now, it may be our last legislative opportunity.
I repeat my assurance that, unless the Minister tells me that on Report he will include something to make a smoking ban compulsory, I shall press the principle of this amendment to a vote. I shall then work with the Minister and others to ensure that the provision is narrowed down to what is reasonable and proper. I stand by my moving of the amendment.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 66) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Denington, B.

Aylestone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L,

Beloff, L.

Ennals, L. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

Galpern, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

David, B.

Hayter, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Heycock, L.

499

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Listowel, E.

Scanlon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Simon, V.

Mais, L.

Stallard, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stedman, B.

Moran, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mulley, L.

Underhill, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Allerton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alport, L.

Layton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Attlee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Auckland, L.

Margadale, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Marley, L.

Belstead, L.

Melville, V.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Blake, L.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Morris, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mountevans, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Brockway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Newall, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Pender, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Carnock, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Portland, D.

Cornwallis, L.

Radnor, E.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Craigavon, V.

Redesdale, L.

Crathorne, L.

Renton, L.

Cross, V.

Rodney, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Romney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saint Brides, L.

De La Warr, E.

St. Davids, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Dundee, E.

Sandford, L.

Elibank, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shannon, E.

Erne, E.

Sharples, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Fortescue, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glanusk, L.

Somers, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stockton, E.

Greenway, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Halisham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swansea, L.

Halsbury, E.

Terrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Teviot, L.

Hardinge of Penhurst, L.

Teynham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Trafford, L.

Havers, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vickers, B.

Hood, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hooper, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ypres, E.

Killearn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.31 p.m.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 17, line 31, at end insert ("; and
(iii) for providing a number of crewmen as shall be approved by the Secretary of State in each shuttle train for the purpose of supervising the matters set out in this section. Such crewmen shall have adequate powers of enforcement of such by-laws as shall be approved by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: As has been mentioned on the previous amendment, Clause 19 makes provision whereby the concessionaires may make a number of by-laws. If my mathematics are correct there are some nine issues mentioned on which the concessionaires may make by-laws.
I was very encouraged in the memorandum from Eurotunnel, in Appendix 12 dealing with safety, that in paragraph 4.2.5 they envisaged that each shuttle would carry at least six crewmen who, apart from the driver, will patrol the shuttle train to ensure compliance with safety regulations. That seems to be a very commonsense suggestion.
In this amendment we are proposing that this subject ought to be one on which the concessionaires may make by-laws. If the Eurotunnel project has in mind to provide for crewmen we ought to give them the power to make such by-laws. We are not laying down the number; it should be as agreed by the Secretary of State. However, we also say that some powers of enforcement must be given to these crewmen. It is no good saying that crewmen will patrol the shuttle to see that the regulations are being carried out unless they have some powers of enforcement. Again, the amendment does not say what the powers should be, but simply that they should have adequate powers of enforcement and that these should be approved by the Secretary of State. The amendment is therefore giving power to the Secretary of State as regards both the number of crewmen on each shuttle train and the enforcement procedures which we suggest should be laid down. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained his amendment very clearly. I hope that I shall be able to answer the points that he has raised.
I shall deal first with the second point on enforcement. Clause 19 already makes the necessary provision for enforcing by-laws. By-laws made under paragraph (g) would empower a crewman to demand the offender's name and address. This could be followed up by prosecutions in the usual way, including fines of up to £1,000 which is Level 4. Subsection (5)—a measure inserted by the Select Committee—makes provision for on-the-spot physical action to be taken, if that is necessary, to compel compliance and remove a source of danger.
On the number of crewmen appointed for the purpose of enforcing by-laws, I suggest that the amendment is defective. Clause 19 is concerned with the concessionaire's by-laws. One does not use by-laws to impose requirements on the body whose by-laws they are. In strict terms it is at the discretion of the concessionaires what by-laws they should

501
propose. The Secretary of State could not compel concessionaires to make a by-law giving him the right to determine crew numbers.
The power to determine crew numbers lies elsewhere; namely, in the concession agreement. Paragraph 51 of Annex I requires the concessionaires to submit for approval by the Intergovernmental Commission their proposed safety arrangements, including operating rules and emergency procedures. If the commission on the advice of the safety authority decides that the number of crewmen proposed by Eurotunnel is inadequate, it will insist on the necessary increase being made. Eurotunnel would be in breach of the agreement with all that that entails in terms of penalties for default if they fail to comply.
In short, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will agree that the matters he raises in his amendment are adequately covered already and that he will be able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that other noble Lords will agree with me that this shows the value of putting down amendments. We now have a quite definitive statement from the Minister of measures which I can acknowledge and support.
What the Minister says about the safety authority confirms the need for Amendment No. 51 on the composition of the safety authority to which we may return at the Report stage. However, in view of the Minister's assurances and the helpful reply he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 17, leave out line 39.
The noble Lord said:I beg to move Amendment No. 70. This deletes an inappropriate provision. When the Bill was originally drafted it was uncertain what the relationship between the concessionaires' by-laws and other tunnel system law would be. The effect of the provision as it stands would be that in the event of an inconsistency between a by-law and other legislation, whether existing or future, the by-law would have precedence. However, it is now clear that the Government will not be relying exclusively on by-laws in relation to important matters such as safety.
Before the tunnel opens—and indeed in many respects as soon as possible after the passage of the Bill—the Government will have to consider, in co-operation as necessary with the French Government, through the Intergovernmental Commission and the safety authority, all aspects of the law applying to the tunnel system and to make such orders as are necessary under Clause 11 of the Bill or under existing legislation, such as the Health and Safety at Work Acts. There is therefore no need to interfere with the normal arrangements that by-laws cannot override the general law made by Parliament. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20[Confirmation, variation and revocation of byelaws by Secretary of State.]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 19, line 17, leave out subsection (8)
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 72
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Computability of fire safety procedures and equipment
. The Secretary of State shall make arrangements with his counterpart in the government of France for ensuring that —

(a) the English and French fire safety procedures and equipment within the tunnel system are compatible: and

(b) a standard system is adopted for communication between English and French fire fighters in that system.")

The noble Lord said: It may be argued by some members of the Committee that this provision is such common sense that there is no need for it in the Bill. The Minister is too young to remember the fire service during the war. I was in the fire service for some five years and was one of those who supported the institution of the National Fire Service. Until then there was no common training or procedures, but with the advent of the National Fire Service every single crewman knew exactly what his job was in an emergency and acted accordingly.
We are saying that arrangements must be made between the Governments of the United Kingdom and France to ensure, first, that fire safety procedures and equipment within the tunnel system are compatible and, secondly, that a standard system is adopted for communication between English and French fire fighters. It may be thought that this suggestion is such common sense that it need not be included, but because it is common sense it ought to be in the Bill to make certain that it is done.
I noticed that this was one of six amendments grouped together for discussion in another place in Standing Committee. But reading the Official Report of that debate I can find no reference to this amendment and can see no ministerial comment. I do not make any critical comments of the other place, but that seems quite usual in view of the large number of different subjects that they seem to group for one debate.
This is common sense, it is something we ought to ensure and I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord was kind enough to say that I was too young to remember the fire service in the war. However, my father served in the fire service throughout the war. I do not know whether he was a colleague of the noble Lord. I appreciate his motives in moving the new clause. It makes sense to ensure that safety equipment is compatible throughout the tunnel system and there should be a standard communication system for fire fighting teams, whatever their nationality. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that the new clause is unnecessary.

503
As I explained in relation to the last amendment on the numbers of trained crew, Eurotunnel is required under paragraph 51 of Annex 1 of the concession agreement to submit its proposed safety arrangements for approval by the Intergovernmental Commission. I have no doubt that the safety authority, which will advise the commission on these matters, would not recommend approval of these arrangements if they did not include provision for the matters covered by the new clause. Indeed the Chief Fire Officer of Kent County Council, as a member of the UK delegation to the authority, will be well placed to ensure that the safety arrangements will be completely satisfactory in these respects
The Committee may also be interested to know that we expect the proposed protocol on frontier controls, policing and emergency services to contain provisions covering much of the ground suggested in the new clause. That is entirely appropriate in developing an international framework and it serves to underline the fact that national legislative provision is unnecessary and inappropriate.
I hope with those assurances that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: Once again I am grateful to the Minister for his welcome assurances. I note the importance that he gives to the position of the Chief Fire Officer of the County of Kent on the safety authority. That is one of the points that we emphasised on Amendment No. 1. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Fire services for tunnel system
.—(1) Fire services in respect of the English part of the tunnel system shall be provided exclusively by the Kent Fire Authority.
(2) No passengers or goods shall be carried for reward through the tunnel system until the Chief Fire Officer for the time being of the Kent Fire Authority has certified that there has been installed in the tunnel system—

(a)a 25 millimetre dual water main

(b)a sprinkler system;

(c)induction systems for foam and inert gas;

(d)general fire fighting equipment; and

(e)facilities and equipment for lifting and removing railway engines and carriages,

sufficient for the purposes of fighting fires in any part of the tunnel system or, as the case may be, for lifting and removing such engines and carriages in the event of derailments in that system.
(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, no passengers or goods shall be carried for reward through the tunnel system until the Chief Fire Officer for the time being of the Kent Fire Authority has certified that the facilities for fire fighting in the tunnel system are such that the standard of fire cover to be provided by his Authority will be satisfactory.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment again deals with fire services for the tunnel system. The Minister may again say that these matters will be brought before the safety authority and that therefore we can be satisfied. But the purpose of the amendment is threefold. First, the amendment places the responsibility for providing fire services for the English part of the tunnel system clearly on the Kent Fire Authority. That is not the position as far as I
504
understand it in the present proposals. The present arrangements contained in the Bill allow for Eurotunnel to provide its own fire service but with the ability to call on the Kent Fire Brigade in circumstances where it considers that it cannot handle a particular incident. This puts the onus on Eurotunnel to decide whether an incident has gone beyond it capability to control.
The delay caused by the time taken to make this decision could have serious repercussions in terms of additional injury and even loss of life. Placing the responsibility for handling all fires on the Kent Fire Authority would remove the middle tier of decision-making and at the same time place at the disposal of the tunnel system the full and immediate resources of the county authority. In view of the concentration of traffic in the tunnel which has been forecast and which we hope will be achieved, the new clause would seem to be a prudent strengthening of the emergency procedures.
Secondly, the new clause sets minimum standards for the provision of fire fighting infrastructure and equipment in the tunnel and gives the responsibility for checking its installation once again to the Chief Fire Officer of the Kent Fire Authority. I am advised that the requirements set out in the clause at paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) represent the minimum facilities for this type of proposed development and as such could be included in the Bill without controversy.
Thirdly, the chief fire officer is empowered to insist on a standard of fire cover which is the equivalent of a similar category of installation on land. This again removes some of the onus of responsibility for setting standards from the safety authority. Although the memo from Eurotunnel in Appendix 12, which has been referred to, includes a detailed Section 5.2 on fire, in its report the Select Committee made only a limited reference to it in paragraphs 128 and 129 and mainly concentrated on the question of segregation, which I am not dealing with in this amendment.
A similar amendment was moved in Standing Committee in another place, but part of that amendment, which dealt with the times of attendance of appliances, has been left out of the amendment before the Committee now. I consider that those points in the amendment in another place were completely unsatisfactory. I did not regard the reply from the Minister in the other place as satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurances, even if he cannot accept all the points made in subsection (2), that there needs to be more authority given to the Chief Fire Officer of the Kent Fire Authority than is proposed in the Bill, which places a lot of onus on the Eurotunnel officers and not on the Kent Fire Brigade. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich:At first glance there are a number of perfectly reasonable features in the amendment, though I am doubtful whether they should appear on the face of the Bill. These are matters for the Intergovernmental Commission and the safety authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, that is one of the many reasons why membership of the authority has to be satisfactory to reassure the public.

505
I should be grateful for help from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on how the discussions are going between the concessionaires and the Kent Fire Service. Inevitably when the committee was sitting these discussions were taking place. It would be helpful if he could give us an indication of the state of play.
The noble Lord may recall that one of the issues which we raised in the committee was the paradoxical position, at first glance, that the safety arrangements at international airports require the presence of full-time dedicated fire fighters, if I may so describe them. What arrangements have now been made among the Kent Fire Service, the concessionaires and the Home Office on this?
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I agree with everything that has been said about the importance of ensuring the highest standard of preparedness for any fire and rescue emergency in the tunnel system. That means having the right numbers of men, with the right skills and the right equipment, standing by in the right places ready to respond promptly to whatever situations arise.
I agree also that the fixed link presents some unique problems for the fire and rescue services, in particular the sheer length of the underground tunnels. However, the Government do not accept that the organisational arrangements for providing fire and rescue cover need to he wholly different, in terms of basic approach, from those of other large installations involving special technical problems or large numbers of people. I have in mind such obvious examples as airports, oil refineries, chemical works and the London Underground.
In all these places, the first line of defence is provided by staff—including specialist fire-fighting staff—of the organisation concerned, trained to use equipment installed in readiness on the premises. The role of the public fire brigade is to be available and ready to deal with any situation likely to be beyond the capacity of the in-house team. In such an event the county brigade assumes overall command. This system has been shown elsewhere to work well in terms of combining effective cover with an efficient use of resources. The Government believe that this is the right approach also for the fixed link.
The proposition that fire cover in the English part of the tunnel system should be provided exclusively by the Kent fire authority would be inefficient because it would involve replacing Eurotunnel employees—some of whom would combine fire fighting and rescue responsibilities with other duties—with full time local authority firemen. And paradoxically, it would debar Eurotunnel from supplementing the Kent fire authority's resources with additional manpower of its own.
Nevertheless, the role of the Kent fire brigade, if there is a major emergency, will be crucial, and close co-operation will be necessary from the start of the construction of the fixed link on emergency procedures, facilities and training. But such co-operation, as we have already heard, cannot be limited to the English side of the Channel. Fire fighting is a bilateral matter. It is one of the very
506
important responsibilities of the Intergovernmental Commission and the safety authority. All the arrangements proposed by Eurotunnel for dealing with fire and other emergencies must be approved by the commission, acting on the advice of the safety authority.
The chief fire officer for Kent, as a member of the safety authority, will be in a very good position to ensure that the arrangements are completely satisfactory from the Kent brigade's point of view. I have no doubt that the advice of the chief fire officer on all matters pertaining to fire and rescue services will be given the very greatest weight in the safety authority's deliberations.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, how the Kent fire authority was getting on in discussions with Eurotunnel. I am afraid that I have not heard any more since the Select Committee was sitting but I shall certainly find out and write to him before the next stage of the Bill.
The Government's approach, as I have outlined it, was explained in detail to the Select Committees in both Houses. They were satisfied that it was correct, and I cannot recommend the inclusion in the Bill of the new clause.
Finally, perhaps I may say a few words about the detailed arrangements incorporated in subsection (2). The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, quite rightly, that it was entirely inappropriate to lay down such arbitrarily chosen details as these in the Bill. I looked with some surprise at one measure. Eurotunnel will have to consider the specification of the water supply. Whether it will suggest that two one-inch pipes are sufficient is not for me to say. It will then be for the safety authority to consider those proposals.
I hope that I have managed to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the new clause is not necessary; otherwise I must urge my noble friends to oppose it.
Lord Underhill: There is certainly no intention of asking the Committee to divide on this issue and I readily accept, as the Minister says, that it may have been unfortunate that we put in detail the five points under subsection (2). I agree that these matters ought to be determined by the chief officer of the Kent brigade along with the safety authority.
In his first few words the Minister stressed the importance of having the right number of personnel and the right appliances at the right time. That is the principle behind the amendment. Most of the larger airports have specialist men standing by. Only a short time would elapse before the normal local authority supplementary services could be brought in. It would not take very long. However, it is a different factor if members of the Kent fire brigade are standing by on the English side of the tunnel and there is a serious incident 10 miles into the tunnel. An appliance will not reach there in five minutes. That is why we detailed the latter part of the amendment which was discussed in another place and which referred to the first appliance arriving after five minutes and the second after eight minutes. From my knowledge of fire appliances, that is nonsense.

507
We wanted to ensure that the chief officer of the Kent fire brigade would be the authority and would make the decisions. I shall study carefully what the Minister has said. Part of what the Minister told us will be helpful and I should be grateful if, when he writes to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, he will send a copy of the letter to me. It is important to know precisely how far these discussions are going. If, at any stage, there is difficulty and the Kent chief fire officer feels that things are not moving in the right direction, I hope that the Minister will take the appropriate action.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—not that I disagree in any way with what he has said. I would specifically draw the Minister's attention to page 700 of the minutes of evidence. Not only is there the question of the Kent fire service being represented on the safety authority; one of Her Majesty's inspectors of fire services is also an alternate member of the authority, which I think is highly desirable. On the other hand, the Minister will note the cross examination on page 700 of the new Chief Inspector of Fire Services, Mr. Doyle. This related to one very important safety question. A serious incident occurred between Manchester and Yorkshire when a petrol train caught fire. Eighteen months after the request of the chief fire officers' association to have a meeting at the Home Office on this question nothing had happened. I hope that episodes of this kind do not take place again because they do not exactly enhance public confidence in the way in which our fire services are administered. I make no criticism of the new Chief Inspector of Fire Services who has been in his post for a relatively short period. It is however a disquieting episode. The Government produced a report on the matter and most of my colleagues were rather concerned when they read it. No doubt the noble Lord will take that into account when he sends the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, my noble friend Lord Tordoff and myself.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I shall indeed.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for that intervention. It was extremely helpful and it illustrates how Parliament must be particularly careful to ensure that it secures the fullest possible information on safety measures at various stages. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, concluded with an important point. The public must be satisfied. If there is one issue on which the public is concerned, it is the safety of the tunnel. That came out clearly during the Second Reading debate. I am grateful for what has been said during today's debate. I shall give serious thought to those remarks and see whether or not we should come back with something at the Report stage. That may be doubtful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 74:
After Clause 20 insert the following new clause:
("Facilities for evacuation of tunnel system
No passengers or goods shall be carried for reward through the tunnel system until the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is possible safely to evacuate persons from the tunnel system in the event of a severe fire incident occurring in that system.")
The noble Lord said: I am sure that, in his usual way, the Minister will say that this is an unnecessary addition to the Bill although many people have said in the course of our debates that things can change. On the one hand it is said that many things can happen in the next six years; on the other, until various safety and other considerations are evaluated by the safety authority and the Intergovernmental Commission, we cannot be sure what the final system will be. That indeed is a reasonable point of view. However, as my noble friend Lord Underhill has said on a number of occasions, and particularly clearly in his last speech, there is public concern about safety in the tunnel and about the risks that may arise in the event of a severe fire incident.
Eurotunnel themselves properly and understandably accept that this risk must be there, because in their memorandum they say that one of the advantages of their system is that there are two tunnels and if there is a fire in one tunnel then it will not spread to the other. Therefore, clearly they must accept, as any reasonable person must, that there is a risk.
Since so many things can happen after the Bill leaves this House and so many things will be done without any reference to Parliament, I think it not unreasonable before the tunnel is opened for public business that the Secretary of State, who must ultimately bear the responsibility, should give a certificate to the extent that so far as can reasonably be ascertained there is a safe system of evacuation should a fire incident occur.
Certainly if the Secretary of State at that time refused to say that in his opinion it was safe to use the tunnel, that would be a serious matter. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that we now propose, as we do not know what the future will bring, that whoever is Secretary of State at the time has this responsibility before the tunnel opens. I do not know whether the Minister is aware—he probably is—that it is a Treasury practice that on quite minor matters of public expenditure (for example, equipment commissioned for the Armed Forces) they do not pay the final bill unless they have a certificate to say that it is suitable and fit for the purposes for which it has been commissioned and designed.
In the enormous project on which we are now embarking it would not be unreasonable to ask the Government ultimately to accept responsibility for safety. The Minister properly says that he is not giving investment advice, and that the decisions about this and that within the project are commercial decisions for the concessionaries to decide. However, it was the Government (and I do not complain about this) which started the competition from which the present scheme has emerged, and I am sure that the Government will make a great claim for credit if this

509
is a success. Therefore there is an element of responsibility. Because of all the uncertainties—because many things will happen after the Bill leaves Parliament as an Act—it would not be unreasonable to ask the Secretary of State to give a decision of this kind before the system goes into operation. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Once again I shall seek to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that this clause is unnecessary. The concession agreement provides that Eurotunnel shall submit to the Intergovernmental Commission for approval their proposed safety arrangements and emergency procedures. Clearly the Intergovernmental Commission, acting on the advice of the safety authority, would not approve such arrangements unless it was satisfied that adequate evacuation measures were in place.
The advantage of this procedure is that the commission represents both the British and French Governments. It is thus able to ensure that there is consistency of treatment in such important matters as evacuation measures throughout the whole of the tunnel system, while the powers of the Secretary of State in English law would extend only up to the halfway point.
With those brief remarks I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, will be able to accept that the arrangements already laid down will in fact provide a better solution than that envisaged in his proposed new clause and be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mulley: I am obliged to the Minister for his reply. I do not know whether he can give us any guidance as to what point in the progress of the tunnel the Intergovernmental Commission will determine, as he suggests they should, that it is safe in every respect. Will this be just at the last moment, or will they come to this decision soon? If they are to wait until just before the tunnel is due to be used, then I would accept that this amendment would not be necessary.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure when the Intergovernmental Commission will give the final word, but the safety authority is already working with Eurotunnel on these matters. In fact it will be an ongoing process. I cannot say exactly when the final word of approval will be given, but obviously plans are being put forward and looked at, and presumably it is an ongoing discussion.
Lord Mulley: I am sure that it would be unreasonable to ask the Minister to give an assurance on behalf of whoever is Secretary of State at that time. However, I hope that it can be recorded so that before the tunnel operates a Statement will be made to both Houses of Parliament—if there are two Houses of Parliament at that time. Having let the Act go through without such a provision, whoever is here at that time will then have the opportunity to discuss the arrangements if it is thought that they are unsatisfactory. With that kind of understanding—I
510
am sure it would be unreasonable to ask for a firm assurance—I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Control of traffic within the tunnel system]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 19, line 47, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Approval of trains]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 20, line 15, at end insert—
("(2) Any such approval under this section shall only be given where the rolling stock can adequately convey the appropriate classes of traffic, including in the case of shuttle trains and through international passenger trains, pedal cycles.")
The noble Viscount said: I hope that your Lordships will allow me to pedal off at a slight tangent from the main thrust of the Bill on the subject of cycling. The intention of this amendment is to make provision for bicycles in international trains passing through the tunnel. The scenario that this amendment seeks to prevent is British Rail telling us in 1993 that it cannot carry bicycles because the rolling stock is not designed to carry them.
Some detailed discussions have already taken place with British Rail and this matter was aired in the Select Committee and raised by me at Second Reading when I said that I fully supported the Bill. I shall particularly be focusing here on the attitude of British Rail and the extent to which any undertakings it may give on bicycles are satisfactory.
Perhaps I may briefly say how the present position has been reached. An identical amendment to this was moved at Report stage in another place by Sir George Young. It was withdrawn when the Minister undertook to raise the matter with British Rail. At Second Reading in this House the Minister also told me that the matter was still being taken up with British Rail. I should say that it was at the Report stage in another place that Eurotunnel and the Government were graceful enough to accept an amendment by the cycling fraternity requiring the shuttle to provide space for the carriage of cycles, but that of course is only from one tunnel end to the other.
The Select Committee of your Lordships' House heard evidence upstairs on 30th March from cycling campaigners and counsel for British Rail; and in correspondence since BR has offered various assurances of its intentions. That is what I should like to concentrate on here. First, I should like to make it clear that cyclists are prepared to pay a proper commercial charge for carriage of their cycles even though at present they are carried free on cross-Channel ferries.
I am talking about cyclists in general and I have been advised in particular by two well-established cycling organisations; the LCC, the London Cycling Campaign, and the CTC, the Cyclists' Touring Club. They are responsible organisations which have been monitoring BR's attitude and practice towards cycles over the years. They share the general feeling that BR is not the cyclists' friend; that it regards them as a nuisance and generally an afterthought in any planning process. I believe that it is fair to take into account BR's past record in assessing its present intentions in the matter before us.
The question that this Committee must decide is whether it can rely solely on BR's goodwill and judgment in this issue or whether the Bill should be amended to concentrate the mind of BR. I should like to describe the worrying problems that will arise if BR, in its wisdom, decides not to provide space for cycles on its international through trains. The only way for cyclists to benefit from the tunnel would be either to bicycle to Cheriton Depot or, as the Minister, Mr. David Mitchell, extraordinarily described at the Report stage in another place on 3rd February 1987 (col. 961):
"by catching a train to Folkestone and cycling about half a mile to the Cheriton Depot where they will use the facilities that will be provided by Eurotunnel for the conveyance of cycles through the tunnel".
I understand that by the time the terminal is built that distance will be nearer three or four miles, and that that will be necessary at all times throughout the year, day or night, whatever the weather.
In addition, a cyclist would have to make sure that any connecting train to convey him to Folkestone was permitted to carry cycles. Many journeys would involve a change at London Termini and a ride across London. There are problems and deterrents enough, but they are doubled because they occur again on the other side of the Channel.
I compare that with the recent box advertisements that we have all seen headed:
"Channel Tunnel starts at Manchester",
or Edinburgh or Cardiff. It is stated that there will be 15 million passenger journeys in the first year alone. Will all 15 million passengers be forbidden to bring cycles with them on the direct through routes to places such as Paris and Brussels simply because no space is allowed for them in the design of the rolling stock? I hope that the Committee will acknowledge that there is at the very least a problem to be dealt with.
The cycling lobby has no desire to try to impose on British Rail conditions which would be non-commercial. It is my belief and that of many others that carriage of extra passengers, plus their cycles, would be viable and indeed profitable. We should not be elitist in catering only for motor cars. Admittedly this is a difficult area in which to assess use; and in particular newly generated use, seven years ahead. As the Minister will no doubt tell us, BR is offering to conduct a survey, part of which is now going on, based on present usage and from these results to decide whether bicycle space is warranted.
512
Various bicycle organisations have agreed to and helped participate in part of the survey. Any survey, however limited, is better than none. Unfortunately, some of the key figures will not be available until next year, after the rolling stock has been designed; but, even more, after the passing of this Bill, the only real decision-making process will take place in the backrooms of BR. To me and to many other people, given the basis of the survey, it is extremely difficult to assess what criteria and factors will be used to judge whether the carriage of bicycles will be commercially viable in seven years' time. Also there is no attempt scientifically to assess new areas of demand that would be generated for cyclists. In brief, I am not only sceptical of the results of the survey but also of how they can be usefully interpreted.
If we allow British Rail to meet in the backroom to make this decision, it is bound only loosely by any assurances that it has given. It must also take with it the French and Belgian operators with whom it must agree the design of the rolling stock. I understand that both those operators are keen to make provision for cyclists.
What are the assurances that British Rail has given? At present the department within British rail which has been dealing with the matter seems from correspondence to be extremely solicitous and polite. So much so that it brought to my mind the concerned way in which politicians treat their electorate just before an election. Even a healthy democrat might be curious as to what will happen after the election—or in this case after the Bill is passed. The best assurance that we have had from BR was that given by its counsel at the end of evidence given upstairs on 30th March 1987, when he said:
"if the market research coming forward this summer justifies carriage of cycles, then British Rail are actively keen to do so and will seek to persuade their European partners to include facilities within the specification of the services".
Another assurance was more restrained. It was given in a letter of 16th April from Mr. Orchard of the Department of Transport to a representative of the London Cycling Campaign. It states:
"I do know however that BR have discussed the carriage of cycles with SNCF".
That is the French operator.
"They both feel that as long as a commercial case can be made they will be happy to consider the carriage of bicycles on the through trains".
I should like to underline the words "happy to consider". That is, if the commercial case has been made, we are still only at the stage of the railway operators considering what to do. That is disappointingly weak, especially given my earlier scepticism of any clear message being derivable from the survey in the first place. A few years ago we had the well known example of the Harris Report endorsing the benefit of cycle carriage by British Rail yet being ignored by it even though it commissioned the report. I strongly hope that the Government can encourage British Rail to assist in the predicament and problem of cyclists and to take them more seriously.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The purpose of Clause 23 is to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that any

513
trains that use the tunnel system to operate on the British Railway network satisfy all appropriate safety and technical standards. It is not intended to enable the Secretary of State to interfere in decisions by the railway operators in purely commercial matters, such as the types of traffic they will carry.
The Bill is quite rightly almost entirely silent on questions of this kind. Exceptionally Clause 18 requires the concessionaires to provide a service on the shuttle trains for pedal cycles and motorcycles of under 50cc. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, explained how this provision came to be inserted in the Bill in another place where a number of honourable Members felt it was not right that when the tunnel opens cyclists should not be able to use it if they wished to do so in preference to the ferries. In fact Eurotunnel had all along been ready to carry cycles if suitable arrangements could be made for overcoming the danger that could result from mixing motor vehicles and cycles in the terminal area, especially when driving into and out of the trains. By the time that Clause 18 was amended in the way I have described, Eurotunnel had more or less found the solution, and it has also been accepted by the French Government. The insertion in the Bill of a statutory obligation did not, therefore, occasion any difficulty for Eurotunnel.
The noble Viscount's amendment asks in effect why, if Eurotunnel can do it, British Rail should not also be obliged to make provision for pedal cycles? The reason quite simply is that it is not economic for British Rail to provide space for pedal cycles unless it is satisfied that there are sufficient cyclists who would use the service at a commercial fare. I remind the Committee that British Rail's international services are to be run on a strictly commercial basis, with Clause 41 of this Bill ensuring that there is no support from public funds. In these circumstances it would be quite wrong to compel British Rail to act uncommercially by providing expensive space if that would not yield a proper return. There is also the consideration that the international services will depend on co-operation between British Rail and its continental partners-probably using interchangeable rolling stock.
Therefore it will be necessary for British Rail to carry its partners with it in any decision of this kind. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, thought the Continental partners were keen on this, in which case all well and good. He also said that discussions with the cycling organisations had been going on for a long time now and that the position of British Rail had not changed in the last six months.
These matters cannot be decided instantly. As I said, British Rail needs to design its carriages and it has to assess the size of the market. It is all very well for the cyclists to say that they will use the tunnel, but British Rail needs to know how many and how often; otherwise expensive space on the trains will be allocated for the wrong purposes and a great deal of potential revenue will be lost. Nevertheless, British Rail has made it clear that it is ready to examine very seriously what it can do for cyclists.
Firstly, it has undertaken to include the question in its negotiations with Continental railways. Secondly,
514
and most importantly, it is in active discussions with the cycling organisations and has been co-operating closely in market research to assess the likely demand from cyclists. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, also mentioned that in his speech.
I am sure that these are the right first steps, and I hope the Committee will agree that it would be wrong to anticipate the outcome of these studies by imposing an obligation on British Rail which could well conflict quite directly with the commercial basis of its international services. I am sorry that I have not been able to sound more helpful to the noble Viscount, but this is a matter which must be settled between British Rail and the cyclists on a proper commercial basis.
Lord Underhill: Before the Minister sits down, has he or his department any view on this? We often hear about a road lobby at the department but I doubt very much whether there is a cycling lobby. Have the Government got any view about encouraging British Rail to find a solution?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As I said at the beginning, it is up to British Rail. The Government do quite a lot of work so far as cyclists are concerned in regard to other matters. But particularly in this instance when British Rail is to be required to operate a purely commercial service on this route, it must be up to it to decide whether it is commercially viable to carry cyclists. If it is, well and good; but if it is not, as I said, it could be a matter of having a lot of expensive space on the trains which might or might not be used by cyclists.
Viscount Craigavon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comprehensive answer, although I am afraid it has not satisfied me. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for having put his name to the amendment, indicating support. I have not tried to get up a huge bicycle lobby in your Lordships' Chamber, partly to save time and partly having regard to the timescale in which this Bill is being discussed.
I am afraid that the cyclists have been caught in a cleft stick by British Rail. If they are asking for detailed statistics of how many and how often cyclists are going to travel on this new and glamorous service in seven years' time, we are not able to supply those figures. If that is a bottom-line argument British Rail is going to use until the end of time and until the day of decision has passed, then we are going to be defeated.
But having said that, I again thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. Having given a lot of thought to this subject, I should like to take it back for reconsideration and perhaps return with it at a later stage. On those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Let me also say before doing so that if I should bring it back at a later stage perhaps the noble Lord in the meantime could read my speech and try to get from British Rail a much clearer and firmer commitment than that quoted already. If that could be done I should be very much happier and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Underhill: May I ask the noble Lord the Minister one question? The clause reads:
"Any train used for conveying passengers or goods through the tunnel system (including any shuttle train) shall be of such a description and conform to such specifications as may for the time being be approved by the Secretary of State".
I wonder whether the Minister can explain where the safety authority comes in. If the specifications of the shuttle train, apart from any others, have to be approved by the Secretary of State, does that imply that the Secretary of State will have a certificate from the safety authority? How is it to work? It could mean that certain decisions are being taken now.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It is a question to which I am sure I should know the answer, but I am afraid I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Mulley:I wonder whether I might also have a copy. In reply to an amendment of mine the Minister said that all this was not necessary because it was provided for. The idea that the Secretary of State should have anything whatever to do with the safety arrangements of the tunnel, which obviously must have a bearing on the specification of the trains, was nonsense. It would all be done by the Intergovernmental Commission. That seems to be something of a contradiction. I am glad to see Clause 23 and I should hate it to be removed. But I should like to know how the two arguments are to be squared.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can give one explanation which I hope will satisfy the noble Lord. The arrangements will be subject to the requirements of the Intergovernmental Commission, but in addition they will have to take account of national requirements, and that is where the Secretary of State comes into it.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Competition, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Supplementary provisions with respect to orders under Part III]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 25, line 43, leave out ("20(8), 22(5) or (6)") and insert ("22(5)")
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 25, line 45, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 47 and insert ("but such an instrument shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment entirely in an exploratory frame of mind, with a view
516
to obtaining clarification. It may seem a little more complicated because of the amendment the noble Lord himself has just moved to remove "20(8), 22(5) or (6)" from the special exemption of Clause 33(3). Clause 32 remains, and while I can understand that there is no need for parliamentary approval for the provisions that apparently have now been taken out, I would have thought it was important that Clause 32 should remain.
The main point of my amendment is to ask why this unusual procedure is being used in the Bill. As the Committee knows, it is normal practice that a statutory instrument shall be made either subject to an affirmative resolution—that is to say, it needs to be approved by a resolution of either House, and preferably both Houses, of Parliament—or to a negative procedure, where after a certain period of time it becomes law unless there is a Motion of one House of Parliament to annul it.
I wonder why this provision about the draft of an instrument is put in instead of the actual instrument itself coming for approval. One of the difficulties in dealing with statutory instruments in either House of Parliament is that they cannot be amended. Is it perhaps intended that the draft needing approval will be open to amendments being moved while it is being discussed prior to its approval?
A very unusual statutory provision is being proposed. I wonder therefore whether I may ask for clarification. Indeed, that is why I am moving this exploratory amendment. Why should we have in this Act the proposal that is now in subsection (3)(b)? Why do we not just follow the normal practice of making all statutory instruments made under powers conferred by the Bill subject to a resolution of one or preferably both Houses of Parliament? I should be most grateful if the Minister would explain. Certainly I do not think it particularly appropriate that no approval should be required for orders made under the competition section of the Bill. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall attempt to explain, I hope to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. I agree with him that Clause 11 is unusual in terms of its breadth and that some of the orders that we shall need to make will involve important issues of policy and principle. One or two such issues are the conferring of extraterritorial powers for the purposes of juxtaposed frontier controls and the creation of new criminal offences peculiar to the tunnel system. The Government fully accept that orders dealing with major matters of this kind should be subject to the affirmative procedure. In connection with the exercise of powers extraterritorially, I must also emphasise that the order-making power in this clause will only be exercised having regard to the accepted rules of international law concerning jurisdiction.
However, it would be quite wrong to assume that all orders under Clause 11 will be concerned with such important issues. Many orders will be technical and non-controversial, notwithstanding that they may involve in some cases the modification of existing primary legislation. We shall need to modify quite a lot of existing frontier control legislation, which is couched in terms applicable only to seaports

517
and airports, in order to render it applicable to the land frontier created by the fixed link. These orders will simply be making terminological adjustments involving no issues of policy. I submit that it would be a waste of parliamentary time to require such orders to be debated and approved before they came into force.
One can also envisage that some existing regulations under health and safety or animal health legislation may need to be modified in order to bring the fixed link within their scope. Generally, such amending orders will be made under the existing primary legislation in accordance with whatever parliamentary procedure—affirmative, annulment or none at all—that legislation prescribes. However, it may sometimes be appropriate to proceed instead by way of an order under Clause 11. In that event it would be absurd to be committed to the affirmative procedure when a similar order made under existing legislation would be subject only to the annulment procedure.
Orders under Clause 11 which, because of their importance, were dealt with under the affirmative procedure may subsequently need amendment—possibly to correct a small drafting slip or to update a technical detail. I submit that we ought not to commit our successors to putting every such minor amending order through the affirmative procedure.
I am afraid that it is not possible to define in cut-and-dried terms which orders under Clause 11 should be subject to which procedure. In the Government's view it is essential that they have discretion as to the appropriate procedure. This is not an unprecedented situation. We meet it regularly in connection with European Community legislation. The European Communities Act 1972 makes the same provision as in Clause 33(3)(b) for orders or regulations implementing Community measures. The guidelines for deciding which orders or regulations implementing Community measures should be debated in draft by Parliament before they are made are expressed in very broad terms and they were accepted by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Government have considerable discretion as to the choice of procedure, but they exercise that discretion in the light of well established practice and informal soundings through the usual channels. It is our intention to deal with Clause 11 orders in much the same way.
I must repeat the assurance previously given, that all orders under Clause 11 concerned with matters of principle or substantial public interest will be submitted to the affirmative procedure, but I strongly urge the Committee not to tie our successors' hands by imposing a rigid requirement that all Clause 11 orders, regardless of their significance, should be subject to that procedure. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with that assurance and will agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Mulley: I am grateful to the Minister for a very careful and considered reply. While I fully understand and agree that it would be quite wrong for either House of Parliament to be bothered with a large number of purely terminological or technical amendments just to bring the new frontier into line
518
with that of seaports and airports and so on, I cannot see how Parliament's time will be saved if the draft of the instrument has to be approved. I am puzzled about the difference between an order and an instrument containing an order. I am sure that there is a very good reason for it and it would be helpful if the Minister could give it to us. I do not understand that an instrument contains an order. I have always thought of a statutory instrument as being an order.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I understand that for the last 10 years at least the affirmative procedure has taken the form of approval in draft. That is how regulations implementing European Community measures are dealt with. That is as far as I can go in explanation at the moment.
Lord Mulley: I was seeking enlightenment. I had a little but I could have done with more. However, in view of that reply I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Nicol: In paragraph 48 of its report, the Select Committee attaches great importance to the environmental quality of the landscape and to the need to secure the highest standards of design and management in executing the entirety of the A.20 improvements. That paragraph ends:
"The objective must be to sustain the quality of landscaping over a substantial period of time ahead".
The Government have now responded to the Select Committee's report. That response completely fails to acknowledge the points made by the committee in respect of both the entirety of the landscape through which the A.20 runs and the need for specific binding agreements with adjacent landowners upon landscaping conditions.
In view of the fact that the Government have failed to give an adequate response to the report, there are two questions that I should like to ask the Minister about the Government's future intentions. First, does the Minister accept the need for long-term agreements, and if so what will be the length of their term? Secondly, will the Minister give an undertaking that long-term binding agreements will be entered into with adjacent landowners by the Department of Transport?
I should like to add that there is another aspect of this matter. On 27th April, when the witness from the Department of Transport was questioned by Mr. Popham, the agent of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, in discussion about the low rate of return on the road, the witness said:
"A particular factor to take into account in this case is that the terrain is difficult and hence the costs tend to be higher than the average road scheme, and the problem of the environmental provisions which have been made by way of a viaduct across Holywell and Roundhill tunnel, which have added to the cost and depressed the rate of return on the scheme".
That seems fine until one looks at the environmental costs of the M.25 Swanley-Sevenoaks section and the

519
A.10-M.11 section of the M.25. Perhaps I may very briefly give the figures. For the A.20, which we are discussing at the moment, the total cost of construction is £55 million. All these figures have been given to me in parliamentary Written Answers, those for the M.25 in February last year and those for the A.20 last week. While the total cost of construction for the A.20 is £55 million, the total cost of environmental works is £4 million. That is 7·27 per cent. In the case of the Swanley-Sevenoaks section, the total cost of construction is £50 million and the total cost of environmental works £7·93 million, which is 15·8 per cent. Finally, for the A.10 M.11 section the total cost of construction is £120 million and the total cost of environmental works £30 million: that is, roughly 25 per cent.
In view of those figures, it is very difficult to understand the remarks made by the Department of Transport witness on 27th April. I wonder if the Minister can give a reply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I am not able to reply to a point of such detail at this stage without notice. I agree that I gave those figures for environmental improvements to the proposed scheme. I am not sure that I follow the relevance of the different percentages. Presumably, environmental improvements cost more in some places than they do in others. I am afraid I shall have to read what the noble Baroness has said and write to her on this subject.
Baroness Nicol: If I could clear the point, as a percentage of the total expenditure, the figure is relevant.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not quite follow that, but I shall certainly read the noble Baroness's remarks. It seems to me that in some places environmental measures probably cost more than they do in others.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Earl De La Warr Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 81:
Before Clause 36 insert the following new clause:
("Road improvements.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to prepare a schedule of the trunk roads which he expects will bear a significant increase in vehicular traffic as a consequence of the bringing into operation of the tunnel system.
(2) In respect of each road included in the schedule prepared under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall identify what improvements are required to accommodate the expected increase in vehicular traffic, and shall use his best endeavours to ensure that such improvements are completed before the date of the bringing into operation of the tunnel system.").
The noble Earl said: This looks rather a formidable new clause but I must tell the Committee immediately, as I have already told my noble friend the Minister that I am not pressing it. The object is to ask a number of questions about the network of roads which leads from Folkestone; that is, other than the main artery, the M.20. There is grave concern that many of the improvements which are needed to the roads will not be completed at the
520
normal rate at which we are accustomed to see roads developed. There is good reason for thinking that some improvements might be as late as three to four years. This is worrying many of the local authorities and a large number of other people, particularly those responsible for proper traffic management. I hope that noble Lords will develop that argument as to why it is so important to get on with these roads. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that this point was emphasised in the Select Committee's report.
I start with the A.259 which leads west from Folkstone, through Hastings and Brighton and finishes up way down in the west at Honiton. It is the eastern part of the A.259 that I want to talk about. This road, labelled as a trunk road, is not much of a trunk road at the moment; indeed parts of it are little more than Broads as those who know the Pevensey Marsh will, I think, confirm. But the improvements which are planned will in my opinion make this road adequate for many years at a cost of about £50 million.
The bypasses on this road which we are worried about are the Bexhill and west Hastings bypass; the east Hastings bypass which has only just been approved and for which consultants have not been appointed; the Rye bypass which is particularly difficult because the railway line has to be moved; and the projected bypasses at New Romney and, moving towards Hythe and Folkstone, at Dymchurch and St. Mary's Bay. They have only recently been approved and no consultants have been appointed. So these are very, very early days in their progress to becoming bypasses. I would be most grateful if the Government would give the Committee their best estimate of when each is likely to be ready.
I move now to the extension to the A.259 which is very important because of the link to the M.20 some two miles to the north. To take over this little road, the A.259 must come right into Hythe where the buses turn round and then turn north-west and climb up the escarpment until it meets the M.20. That is a very doubtful proposition indeed. I understand that no consultants have been appointed here either, although the Government appear to be intent upon the project. So far as I can see, there are two options. One is to take the little road on its present line which means that a number of houses on the road coming south from the M.20 will have to be demolished for road widening. I ask myself what the Shepway District Council will say about that.
The second alternative is to move a little to the west. This is hard to visualise unless one has seen it. The route would be down the B.2068 and through the Shepway Cross re-entry into the escarpment. There are no other options. All the way above Hythe there is a 250 foot escarpment which is geologically unstable and through which it would be impossible to drive any major works. I ask the Government to give us some special assurances in view of what I have said.
I come now to the A.2070 road which leads from Brenzett-in-the-Marsh north for about ten miles to Ashford where it joins up with the new Ashford south orbital road on which is situated the inland clearing

521
depot for goods vehicles and the new international station. It is potentially quite a good road but requires a great deal of work. It needs bypasses at Ham Street and Kingsnorth and some straightening and widening.
All these improvements which have been proposed by the Kent County Council have been turned down by the Government except for the little bypass at Ham Street. I ask myself why. Why phase an important little road like this, which is, quite obviously, because of the international station and the goods depot, very much part of the infrastructure of the tunnel? Would the Government please explain their attitude? I hope they will be prepared to tell us that they are on the point of approving this work for additional RSG.
I come now to the A.260 which leads from Folkestone northwards to the A.2 for about eleven miles; thereafter, it enables one to go to Canterbury and further north to Whitstable and Herne Bay. Most important of all, it enables one, having gone through Canterbury, to reach the M.2 and thus find an alternative route to London and the North, should there be any problem with the chosen route. It would cost about £10 million. It needs two small bypasses and some straightening and widening and the Government have only agreed to grants for half these improvements. It seems ridiculous not to carry out all these improvements at the same time. So, please would the Government explain why they take this line? When will they let the Kent County Council have the go-ahead? The A.256 is a road which leads from Folkestone via Dover and north to Thanet. Another Member of the Committee is familiar with that road and will address the Committee on the subject.
I should now like to turn to my final point, which is not so close to the tunnel but is connected with the M.20. The M.20 has a left-hand branch, the M.26, which joins it up with the M.25. At the point that the M.26 meets the M.25 it goes over a main arterial road from East London south past Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells to Hastings. That is the A.21.
If one was able to turn off it at that point, going westwards, it would open up a brand new entrance to the South-East of England, but one cannot because there is no turn off. If one was coming from the west going eastwards toward Folkestone, one could turn off and go south on the A.21, because there is a turn off. If one can do that one way why not the other? I ask the Government to have a look at that.
I apologise for the length of my questions but we are talking about some very important parts of local infrastructure in Kent and East Sussex, all of which are intimately concerned with the tunnel. I hope very much that the Government will not tell us that they will spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: My name is also put down to this amendment. However, I cannot follow the excellence of my noble friend Lord De La Warr, who has explained everything in great detail, done great service to the Committee and also provided a great deal of colour to the local area of Kent and East Sussex.
522
We have had the Second Reading and also the excellent Unstarred Question of my noble friend Lord Hardinge of Penshurst to which my noble friend gave some assurances. My noble friend Lord De La Warr is asking the Government to endorse those and I think that he is absolutely right.
Lord Pender: Before the Minister replies I wish to make two quick points in support of my noble friend Lord De La Warr, who put the amendment so cogently, although I think that after a long afternoon the Minister must be looking forward to his dinner. There is great concern that progress by the Department of Transport will not be sufficiently rapid to ensure that road improvements are completed on schedule by 1993. Indeed there have been suggestions that some schemes could run about two years late. I hope that that point will be in the front of the Government's mind.
I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the special circumstances of the A.256, which before the leaf is on the trees I can see from my bedroom window. The only drawback of living where I do is that the access on to that road is difficult.
The A.256 runs 30 kilometres from Dover to Ramsgate. It forms the third side of a triangle of primary routes in East Kent, which carry up to 10,000 vehicles a day. A good proportion of those are heavy vehicles. Injuries averaged 75 per year, with two fatalities per year over the last three years.
The Eastry bypass is to be much welcomed. Those Members of the Committee who know that village will be aware of the perils that heavy vehicles can bring as they travel through, some none too slowly. The bypass has reached the design stage. The route has been agreed and there is a start date fixed for 1990, perhaps earlier. But the ratepayers pick up the tab.
When the tunnel opens, the A.256 becomes a tunnel-related bypass. Unless there is massive road improvement before that time, which can only be achieved by government help, I dread to think of the congestion, frustration and bereavement in store.
Lord Morris: Despite the fact that I can hear the tummy of my noble friend the Minister rumbling even at this distance, I rise only to support my noble friends Lord Pender and Lord De La Warr. I should like to thank the Select Committee of your Lordships' House for drawing attention to these points in paragraph 22 of its report. It stated in very strong language that a number of the local routes to the tunnel are of a poor standard and need to be improved with great urgency. Select Committee reports do not use adjectives lightly. The report's conclusion is absolutely right there.
I should like to make one further very quick point. It is simply that there is great concern in Kent County Council, and I am certain in Shepway Council as well, not forgetting the Sussex councils involved, about the piecemeal approach to vehicular road traffic improvement. If it is not done as a whole—I recognise the resource implications of these points—one rather gets the effect of driving down a sausage which is very fat in some parts and very thin

523
in other parts. That is absolutely hopeless. One is merely creating a series of bottlenecks. All I ask is whether the Minister could possibly consider very carefully what has been said and above all maintain consultations with the concerned local councils.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: In supporting the amendment it is rather difficult to avoid repeating some of the points that have already been eloquently put, especially by my noble friend Lord De La Warr. Therefore I shall keep my contribution short. I realise that the amendment is concerned with all the roads, and I am only anxious that East Sussex should not be left behind or come out in any way second best. It is an important area, very close to the main development, and the Government have gone a long way to recognise that in their assurances about the A.259 corridor. In particular the recent addition of the eastern Hastings bypass to the programme has been most welcome.
To me the most important part of the amendment is the last sentence of subsection (2). My noble friend Lord De La Warr and other Members of the Committee have touched on this. That subsection asks for an undertaking about the timing of the various agreed road improvements. I am sure that we all recognise the difficulties that must face any government in giving such undertakings, but I am coming to my main point and my reason for intervening in the debate.
I have the paper of the Secretary of State called Policy for Roads in England: 1987 Vol 2. On page 24 in paragraph 12, sub-paragraph 9, reference is made to major works on the M.20 and A.20. It continues:
"Preparation is continuing as quickly as possible to have all three outstanding schemes for this route in place subject to the necessary Parliamentary and statutory procedures by the time the tunnel is planned to open in 1993".
At present local experts in both East Sussex and Kent predict that various essential improvements to the A.259 corridor will not be completed before 1996. Can we not have the same urgency for the A.259 corridor as for the M.20 and the A.20? Cannot the road developments that so acutely affect the towns of Hastings, Bexhill, Eastbourne, Battle etc. be given the same priority as the major developments in Kent? Perhaps the Minister can give some reassurances about that in his reply.
7 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: It is dreadful for the Minister to have to sit this geography exam just before dinner! However, I hope that he will be able to comment on the possible extension of the A.2.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall attempt to deal with your Lordships' questions in as much detail as possible. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord De La Warr for having notified me in advance of the particular roads he was going to mention. I have a map of them here.
I am of course in complete agreement with my noble friends that trunk roads, which will carry significantly increased traffic as a result of the Channel Tunnel, must have all necessary
524
improvements made to them. In so far as is practical, that should be done before the tunnel is opened. I hope that this amendment will not be pressed, as my noble friend has said it will not be, because I believe that the Government have already taken all reasonable steps.
The three trunk roads which are likely to be most affected by Channel Tunnel traffic are the M.20-A.20, the M2-A.2 and the A.259. Further afield, on the M.25 and beyond, the additional traffic generated by the tunnel will be small by comparison with existing traffic flows and should not, by itself, necessitate improvements being made.
The principal link between London and the Channel Tunnel and ports will be the M.20-A20, and planning has taken place on this basis. The missing link in the M.20 between Maidstone and Ashford is being completed and the A.28 between Folkestone and Dover is being replaced. One of the main reasons for including the improvement of half of the A.20 in the Bill was the need to ensure (subject to statutory procedures) that the road would be open by the time the tunnel opens.
With the improved M.20-A.20 as the principal route, the M.2-A.2 should not need substantial improvement, although the Government have given a formal undertaking that this will be kept under review once the effect of tunnel-related traffic is known. It needs to be borne in mind that even if it was decided now to go ahead with all speed with improvements to the A.2 between Lydden (where the dual carriageway stops) and Dover, the improvement would probably not be ready in time for tunnel opening.
Turning to the A.259-A.261, which is of particular concern to several of my noble friends, the bypass to New Romney was restored last October to the road programme, and in April the Government announced that bypasses to St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch would also be restored in the programme. In addition the Hastings Eastern bypass would go ahead. The A.261 link to the M.20 at Stanford is to be trunked in replacement of the A.259 between Hythe and Folkstone. Consultants are to be appointed by the autumn to investigate and prepare detailed proposals for this road. They will examine all options, both along the line of the existing road and along new routes. We do not wish to rule out any possible option until the work has been done.
It is the aim of the department to complete all improvements, except the Hastings Eastern bypass, by the time the tunnel opens, or for them to be under construction by then. The timing depends on how quickly the detailed preparation and design can be progressed, and on completion of the statutory procedures.
It must be borne in mind that these new roads will pass through environmentally sensitive areas. Consultants were appointed in January to investigate possible routes for the Bexhill-Hastings Western bypass. It is hoped that consultants will be appointed this autumn for the New Romney, St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch bypasses. Consultants for the Hastings Eastern bypass are unlikely to be appointed until 1988.

525
Any delay in the completion of the improvements would be inconvenient. However, estimated traffic flow figures indicate that the road in an unimproved state is unlikely to attract a substantial amount of additional traffic as a result of the Channel Tunnel. Any further improvements to trunk roads are not supported by current traffic forecasts and so could not properly be included in the national roads programme.
Turning to the local roads which my noble friends have mentioned in the debate, although the amendment only refers to trunk roads, I can say that in addition to the improvement to trunk roads, all necessary improvements are to be made to local roads. Kent County Council has identified 13 improvement schemes to local roads which will be needed for Channel Tunnel traffic. Its bid for transport supplementary grant for 1987–88 covered only eight of the schemes. Five of the schemes were given early conditional acceptance. Two of those were improvements to the A.2070 at Ashford, the A.2070 Hamstreet bypass, the A.260 Hawkinge bypass and the A.260 Denton bypass.
Three of the schemes were not accepted. Those were bypasses to Densole on the A.260, to Kingsnorth on the A.2070 and to Whitfield on the A.256. They were not allowed on the grounds that they were not such strong candidates for early conditional acceptance two full years before main works are due to start. Kent County Council has been invited to resubmit them and there need be no delay in the council's anticipated completion dates.
This year Kent County Council is also likely to put forward the remaining five schemes. All of the schemes will be considered sympathetically in line with the Government's assurance that resources for improvements to local roads which are necessary to cope with extra traffic resulting from the Channel Tunnel will be additional to the county's ordinary road programme. I think it is worth pointing out that the Kent schemes accounted for six of the 13 early conditional approvals granted under TSG for this year.
Turning now to the M.26 and the M.21-A.21, it was announced on 13th June 1984 that the provision of east-facing slip roads from the M.26 to the A.225 just east of the M.26-M.25-A.21 junction, known as the Chevening junction, would be abandoned. However, the need was to be kept under review and reassessed after traffic had settled down upon completion of the M.25 Swanley to Sevenoaks section. Since the M.25 section was opened in early 1986, there has been moderate pressure to provide facilities at the M.26-M.25-A.21 Chevening junction to allow traffic to turn off the M.26 westwards on to the A.21 southwards, and vice versa.
In order to establish whether there is a need to provide this facility, a traffic survey was undertaken by Kent County Council on behalf of the department in 1986–87. The results are being prepared by the county council and will be forwarded to the department shortly. If that study identifies a need, then in the usual way a scheme will be considered for adding to the national road programme.
526
I hope that my noble friend will accept that in the main, what he seeks is already being done. The Government have to be even-handed in their national road programme, but they are committed to the provision of the necessary road infrastructure for the Channel Tunnel. They have this very much in mind in reviewing the road programme. I hope that what I have been able to say this afternoon will give some assurance to my noble friends.
Earl De La Warr: I am grateful to my noble friend for the trouble that he has taken over the many questions which I put to him and for the clarity of his answer. Having said that, I must say that it is a little bit like the curate's egg. So far as the A.259 is concerned, I think that what the Minister had to say was encouraging. However, I cannot quite understand what is so difficult about Hastings East, which leaves the bottleneck. I hope that the Government will change their view on that and hurry it up.
As for the A.261, my doubts remain but we must all hope that when the consultants have made their report on how to get up the escarpment without pulling down local houses, the answer will be satisfactory.
As for the three county roads, I can only say that the Minister has confirmed that all the answers concerning the additional TSG grant are in every case still partial and the questions have not been answered. Over the next few years, we shall be pressing the Government hard from all quarters to try to get that matter put to rights.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said about the A.21. He may have detected that there was a slightly subjective element about the query. I am glad to hear that he is going to look after that. This has been a useful debate and I believe that there are many local authorities who will be very pleased to have the answers that have been given tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: Before I move that the House be resumed, I suggest that we do not come back to the Committee stage before ten past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
7.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd April be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on 2nd April 1987, be approved.

527
This draft order, is based on the Law Reform Committee's recommendations contained in its 24th Report, implemented in relation to England and Wales by the Latent Damage Act 1986. It also amends the law of limitation in respect of libel and slander actions.
There is a general principle that a plaintiff must commence a civil action for damages within a particular period if he is not to be barred from doing so. In Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales, the general principle is that the limitation period starts to run against the plaintiff from the date of the accrual of his cause of action; that is—in non-legal terms—from the date when he first has the right to bring the action. In negligence cases (apart from personal injury cases) the ordinary limitation period is six years and the cause of action accrues when the negligent act or omission constituting the breach of the duty of care results in damage. In many cases the damage follows quickly upon the negligent act and is perfectly obvious. But there are cases where the resulting damage does not arise until many years after the breach of duty; and there are other cases where the damage is not discoverable until long after the six-year limitation period has expired.
In 1980, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone referred the matter of latent damage to the Law Reform Committee, which considered that the present law was unjust. The six-year period might well elapse before the potential plaintiff could reasonably be aware that he had a right of action. On the other hand, a potential defendant might find himself exposed to a negligence action many years after his breach of duty in cases where the damage was long delayed, so that he might not be in a position either to contest the claim on the basis of his records or to meet it with adequate insurance cover.
The Law Reform Committee made a number of recommendations intended to remedy the potential injustices to plaintiffs and defendants. Article 3 takes account of the committee's principal recommendations. These were, first, that the ordinary limitation period of six years should be subject to an extension which would allow the plaintiff three years from the date of discovery or the date on which he could reasonably have discovered significant damage; and, secondly, that non-injury negligence claims should, in the absence of deliberate concealment on the part of the defendant, be subject to a long stop which would operate to bar them after 15 years from the breach of duty. Article 4 contains two consequential provisions recommended by the Law Reform Committee. The first deals with the situation where the disability (in this case unsoundness of mind) arises after the accrual of the cause of action. The second disapplies the long stop in cases involving deliberate concealment by the defendant.
Article 5 enables persons who acquire property which is subject to latent damage to succeed to the right of action in respect of that damaged property. Although this is achieved by providing successive owners with new causes of action, the same limitation periods are effectively preserved as if the damaged property had not been transferred.
528
I mentioned at the outset that the order makes some changes in respect of limitations in libel and slander actions. Article 6 takes account of changes made in England and Wales in the Administration of Justice Act 1985 by reducing the limitation period in libel from six years to three. And, like the 1985 Act, the order provides for a new extension of one year, for which leave of the High Court is necessary, where certain facts were not known to the plaintiff until after the three-year limitation period had expired. The order before us is a useful, if rather technical, law reform measure which is of considerable benefit. With that explanation, my Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd April be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
7.16 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it is my first pleasurable task to extend a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to his office in the Northern Ireland department. Those of us who regularly attend to Northern Ireland business in your Lordships' House appreciate the courtesy, patience and help at all times of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and indeed the help which we have always received from his private office. The noble Lord knows that he can draw on a fund of goodwill from your Lordships' House, but he has never to my knowledge taken advantage of his position.
The draft order now before the House is the first Northern Ireland order of this Parliament. It is a short order but it effects important changes in the limitation law as it applies in actions arising out of the tort of negligence. I do not know how the interested organisations have responded to the draft order and I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that it receives the support of the relevant parties in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has explained that its provisions follow those of the Latent Damage Act 1986, which in turn was based on the report of the Law Reform Committee, which had considered this complex subject for some four years before it formulated its proposals. In those circumstances I would not seek to venture to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said, except to say that we agree in general from this side of the House that it will be a valuable order and we are therefore pleased to support it.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. I, too, should like to welcome him back to his position on the Government Front Benches and to support what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has said. We are very grateful to him for his courtesy and we also congratulate him on his continual cheerfulness in difficult circumstances.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who has the advantage of legal knowledge. The order is somewhat technical and I have only one point to raise. I understand that this order is to bring the law

529
in the Province into line with that of the mainland, and paragraph 9F(1) reads:
"An action for damages for negligence, other than one to which section 9A applies, shall not be brought after the expiration of fifteen years from the date … on which there occurred any act or omission".
There are further qualifications, but the one question that I should like to put as a layman is: is 15 years not a very long time before which justice must be seen to be done?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I too associate myself with the words of welcome which have been expressed across the Floor of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Since taking up his appointment in the Northern Ireland office I too have found him to be most helpful and courteous in every way.
However, I feel that I must draw his attention to the concern which has been expressed by the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland about the whole question of law reform. It has already been stated that these orders are couched in somewhat legalistic terms and only those with a legal background—and we have to be grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is in the House tonight—or who have otherwise been fully briefed would he aware of the full implications of these orders.
Only this morning I received a communication from the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland complaining about the whole system of law reform in Northern Ireland. It draws my attention to the fact that the society feels very dissatisfied with the way in which legal changes and law reform are debated in this House. It says quite clearly that totally insufficient attention is given to issues of law reform and, consequently, changes in the law because they are brought to this House through Orders in Council and in the absence of adequate debate and scrutiny. I think anyone looking around the House this evening would not dare to disagree with those sentiments.
It has been explained to me that in 1965 the Law Commission was brought into being to look into the law reform problems of England and Wales. The following year the Scottish Law Reform Society was formed. In Northern Ireland there is no comparable organisation. In the 22 years of its existence since 1966, no Northern Ireland voice has been heard on the Law Commission. There has been no Northern Ireland appointment from the legal profession—and I am certainly not here to defend the legal profession in Northern Ireland—and no Northern Ireland voice has been heard in the deliberations which have taken place in the Law Commission.
It appears that behind these orders, decisions will be taken and advice will be given by senior civil servants in the various Northern Ireland offices. I hope that the representations, which I understand have already been made to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the Lord Chancellor over a month ago, will be given urgent attention and that the recommendations from the Northern Ireland Office contained in the submissions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be acted upon. It may be that there is nothing offensive in these orders, but that is not clear to someone like
530
myself who has no legal experience and who does not represent a Northern Ireland constituency, as I did in another place at another time.
When such orders come before the other House a Member of Parliament has all the requisite means at his disposal to make the required inquiries. Sometimes he can be inundated with advice from particular sources in Northern Ireland. However, that does not happen in your Lordships' House. We are a backwater in relation to the promulgation and the enforcement of legislation. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will clarify this order, and the other orders are which very much the same, or they will be understood only by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I think I am quite at liberty in saying that the noble Lord himself, outside of the brief which he has obtained from a civil servant would not be entirely aware of all the ramifications of these orders. It is in the interests of this House and this legislation that the justice of these orders should be clearly explained. That would ease the position in Northern Ireland where, as I say, great concern has been expressed by the Law Society of Northern Ireland. I hope that he will be able, through his honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other House to consider with some urgency the representations which have already been made by the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, all three noble Lords who have spoken in reply to my moving of this order have been more than kind about my reappearance in this position, speaking on Northern Ireland. I reply to them and, indeed, to everybody who has been so kind to me in Northern Ireland and in your Lordships' House with two words: "I blush". As your Lordships will be aware, the praise which is directed at me should be directed at those who support and brief me through the long hours of night and day and, indeed, the early morning, too.
It is a great pleasure to serve everybody in Northern Ireland and to do one's best in your Lordships' House having that responsibility for Northern Ireland. I am most grateful for the comments which have been made and pari passu I am delighted that all three noble Lords who have spoken will be able, for the time being at least, to give us the benefit of their wisdom, experience and hard work on Northern Ireland orders—though perhaps not necessarily orders as complicated or as technical as those now before us.
I begin by attempting to reply to at least two comments. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked who had been consulted and what recommendations we had received. The first order was generally welcomed by all those who commented upon it. The Law Society of Northern Ireland was, I am given to understand, content but the Law Society made a plea for an up-to-date print of the Statute of Limitations as amended. We are of the opinion that the best solution to the point which has been made by the Law Society—probably with some justification—would be consolidation. I am able to tell the noble Lords, Lord Fitt, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton, that we are considering such an order. I do not want to commit my noble and learned colleagues and my

531
right honourable and learned colleagues in another place to such consolidation or to when it will take place. We are considering the position and that is what I stress this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked how the integrated organisations replied. There was no objection to the draft order made by any of the interested parties. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, quite rightly, had one query regarding 15 years and he quoted, I think, new Section 9F in Article 3 of the order. However, I am given to understand that 15 years is considered as a longstop period of time barring. The Law Reform Committee considers it a balance between the extension given to plaintiffs and the fact that defendants would have to answer fairly stale claims, as I stressed in my opening remarks. It could be difficult for them to have total recall of what might have been done or the courses of action that might have given rise to a claim for negligence or something of that kind. The Law Reform Committee decided that 15 years was a reasonable period and we also believe this to a fair period.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for his comment. He mentioned the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland. I do not know whether that is the same as or part of the Law Society of Northern Ireland, which I mentioned earlier. I shall reply to him in the same vein as I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked me about law reform in Northern Ireland. That point has been raised by the Law Society with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is being given careful consideration currently by my right honourable friend in consultation with my noble and learned friend.
I should like to try to put at rest the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the Law Society. We are taking those anxieties seriously. We hope, again without time commitment, that we may have some news for them in the future. The noble Lord was most kind about anyone with a knowledge of law replying in your Lordships' House. I am no lawyer; I am a mere chartered accountant. However, 10 years ago I had a fairly solid apprenticeship in the law. I may have recourse to one of the Bills discussed by your Lordships' House 10 years ago when I deal with a later order this evening.
I agree that this order is of benefit to lawyers. That is not to say that we feel any malevolence towards the legal profession. This order covers a complicated subject and your Lordships would probably agree that it should best be left to the experts. I hope that I have given an adequate presentation of the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Occupiers' Liability (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
7.32 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd April be approved.
The noble Lord said: The order, which corresponds to the Occupiers' Liabilty Act 1984 in
532
England and Wales, deals with two distinct aspects of the civil liability in Northern Ireland of an occupier to persons on his land or premises. Article 3 is concerned with the duty of an occupier to persons who are not regarded in law as his "visitors". Article 4 concerns the extent to which an occupier of business premises may permit visitors to come on his land or premises on terms which exclude or restrict his liability.
The purpose of Article 3, as far as liability to trespassers is concerned, is to restate on a statutory basis (and I hope clarify) the present common law rules derived from the decision of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in British Railways Board v.Herrington, which involved the liability of an occupier to a child trespasser. The decision was unanimous in favour of the child but contained several different lines of reasoning. As a result my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone asked the Law Commission to consider the matter of liability to trespassers. The Law Commission recommended that the matter should be placed on a statutory footing.
Article 3 again follows the Law Commission's recommendations in applying also to persons who are not the occupier's visitors but who are nevertheless on the land or premises with lawful authority. Persons exercising private rights of way come within this category, as do those exercising rights under access orders and access agreements. This should further clarify the law.
Article 4 is intended to facilitate an occupier of business premises such as farmland to permit visits on his land for recreational or educational purposes. It does this by altering very slightly the boundaries of business liability under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977—that was my apprenticeship which took place 10 years ago—so as to enable the occupier to permit visits for recreational or educational purposes, such as rock climbing or bird watching, on terms which effectively exclude or restrict his liability for the dangerous state of the premises. But such a restriction or exclusion of liability is circumscribed by Article 4. I have already indicated that the visit must be for recreational or educational purposes.
Secondly those purposes must not fall within the business purposes of the occupier, so that the occupier of the cinema or safari park, for example, will still remain subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 as far as his ability to exclude or restrict liability is concerned. Thirdly, an occupier will not be able to avail himself of Article 4 in respect of his liability for dangerous activities on the land. Again, in those circumstances the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 will continue to apply to the business premises in relation to any such purported exclusion or restriction of liability. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 an occupier of business premises cannot effectively exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence or breach of statutory duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act (Northern Ireland) 1957; and any such exclusions or restrictions in respect of other loss or damage are subject to a test of reasonableness.
Finally, I refer your Lordships to the one change in the order since it was published as a proposal. It is a

533
drafting change. The second limb of the definition of "road" in Article 3(9) has been expanded slightly. The words "or way" are intended to cover public rights of way which would not ordinarily be considered to be roads as such; public footpaths would come into this category. This amended definition corresponds closely to the expression "highway" in the English 1984 Act.
With that brief run around the order, I hope that I have been able to give some clarification. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd April be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to endorse the reservations of my noble friend Lord Fitt about legislation by Order in Council. From these Benches we have been consistently critical of legislation by Orders in Council. It is one of the penalties of direct rule, and it is a matter to which we shall return during the debate on Thursday.
We are grateful to the noble Lord for his comprehensive explanation of the significance of the Occupiers' Liability (Northern Ireland) Order. His explanation of orders is invariably good and comprehensive. It is a brief order. Its essence is to be found in Articles 3 and 4, which follow the relevant sections of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. Article 3, unlike Article 4, follows the law of England, Wales and Scotland. When it was introduced it was supported by the Law Commission and the Royal Commission on civil liability. It seems to me that we can follow that guidance with regard to Northern Ireland.
As the noble Lord has explained, Article 4 deals with a consequence of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and restricts the liability of the landowner towards persons who are permitted on his land for recreation or educational purposes, and as a matter of goodwill. This was an area of law over which there had been much uncertainty and difficulty. An ever-growing body of townspeople wish to share in all the pleasures of the countryside and we hope that this relaxation will encourage farmers to allow people increased access to the countryside.
However, I have this question to ask the Minister on Article 4. The principle contained in Article 4 does not apply in Scotland. When the Occupiers' Liability Bill was before Parliament in 1983 the Minister's Scottish brethren deliberately decided not to introduce this amendment for the law of Scotland. I believe that the Law Society of England and Wales on that occasion had very strong reservations with regard to the principle of Article 4. The Minister will therefore have anticipated my question. Can he tell the House why the Northern Ireland department has decided not to follow the Scottish precedent but to follow the English and Welsh precedent? This would be a very appropriate question for the assembly to pronounce upon, but the assembly is not in being.
I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what organisations in Northern Ireland were consulted about Article 4. Will he say whether or not reservations of objections were expressed by those
534
organisations? Or were all content to go along with the English and Welsh precedent?
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order. Again, I am indebted to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for their views. Following upon what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, I am interested in confirmation that the law is being brought into line with that of England and Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has said, in some cases the Scots wished to go down a different road. However, I see no reason not to support the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was kind enough to hint that he might be supporting the law of my nation as opposed to that of England and Wales. I took the precaution of bringing with me the relevant statutes of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I note that it is split into two halves. Part II of the Act covers the amendment of law for Scotland. However, I think that no-one in your Lordships' House would wish me to go too far down the road as to why there is Part I and Part II of that happy Act. The Act is split between the law of England and Wales and Scotland.
With regard to the matter before us this evening, Northern Ireland has traditionally followed the same legal principles as England and Wales on the subject of occupiers' liability at common law and in statute form. We see this with the Occupiers' Liability Act (Northern Ireland) 1957. This corresponds to the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 in England and Wales. Accordingly we decided to keep the law on the same footing and not to follow the Scottish mode. We believed for perfectly valid reasons that we should keep the occupiers' liability principles on the same line as those of England and Wales. We do not believe that there is any loss of right to members of the public. I shall not go into too much detail this evening about what might have been done or the particular Acts. I mentioned the example of a cinema, or an animal park. The two examples that I gave were visits on to land for educational or recreational purposes which, in my view and that, I believe, of noble Lords, would be an infrequent and irregular occurrence.
It was with this in mind that we drew the business liability definitions in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 a little more tightly. However, we think that the amendment to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 should follow the English amendment with regard to occupiers' liability because we wish Northern Ireland occupiers' liability to remain in step with England and Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, had one other query about this aspect of Article 4. That is more complicated than the answers I have been able to give him this evening. Perhaps I may write to him with my traditional brevity.
I am very grateful for the interest shown by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I hope that I have answered the queries raised by your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
7.44 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th April be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this order, I hope that your Lordships will permit me to speak at the same time to the Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1987.
The two draft orders—the substantive Northern Ireland order and the consequential amendment order—are both based on the recommendations of the Law Commission's Report No. 122 entitled The Incapacitated Principal. The reason for this title will become evident to your Lordships as I proceed through my explanation of the orders before us. In doing so, both these orders closely correspond to the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 which relates to England and Wales.
As the law stands in Northern Ireland, a power of attorney automatically comes to an end if the donor becomes mentally incapable. As I am sure noble Lords will agree, however, that is the time when he (or possibly she, but for the purposes of the order before us this evening I shall continue in the masculine mode) most needs someone to manage his affairs. In such circumstances his relatives can apply to the office of care and protection in the High Court for the appointment of a controller.
However, noble Lords—and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Fitt-will be aware that that is a very formal and often expensive and somewhat cumbersome procedure. Accordingly, the Law Commission recommended that the law provide for a special kind of power of attorney known as the enduring power of attorney which would be capable of continuing beyond the donor's mental incapacity. The commission devised a detailed scheme with built-in safeguards for the donor, the attorney, and third parties dealing with the attorney. The scheme, which is closely followed in the substantive order provides a relatively informal means of managing a mentally incapacitated person's affairs without resorting to administration through the High Court. I draw attention at the bottom of page 3 to Article 4. This article sets out the characteristics of an enduring power of attorney. Unlike an ordinary power of attorney, an enduring power will be subject to certain requirements as to form and execution. It will be in a prescribed form, it will have to be executed both by the donor and the attorney and it will have to contain certain explanatory information making it plain to the donor the nature of the power he is creating.
The attorney has a duty under Article 6 to take steps to register the enduring power in the High Court as soon as he has reason to believe that the donor is mentally incapable of managing his affairs or that he is becoming so incapable. The attorney need not wait until the donor is totally incapable, but before applying to the High Court for the registration of the enduring power he must notify certain specified relatives as well as the donor himself, unless the court allows the attorney to dispense with such notices.
536
Schedule 1 on page 14 gives an idea of some of the persons who might need to be notified, but this is not an exclusive list.
Once an enduring power is registered, the affairs of the donor are almost completely in the hands of the attorney, although the court has a supervisory role and may exercise certain functions in relation to the donor's affairs. These functions are set out in Article 10.
Thus far I have dealt mainly with the safeguards which the order provides for the donor, but the House will appreciate that it is important that third parties such as purchasers of the property of the donor should be able to deal with the attorney in good faith, confident in the knowledge that any such transactions would be effective and would not be liable simply to be set aside. Article 11 provides the necessary protection. It also protects the attorney who acts in good faith.
I go on briefly to the technical change in the order, as it was published as a proposal. Article 5(3) as it originally stood was in the same terms as Section 3(3) of the English 1985 Act, in that it enabled the attorney to assume all the donor's trust powers and give a valid receipt for capital money. Such a provision was necessary in English legislation primarily to cater for married co-owners to enable one spouse to act as attorney for the other and to deal effectively with the matrimonial home. This occurs because joint tenancies in England and Wales operate on the basis of statutory trusts for sale. But such a provision is not necessary in the current state of the law of property in Northern Ireland and its width was queried by some of those who commented on the proposals before us. The revised version in the order before us takes account of these comments.
In conclusion, I turn to the Northern Ireland consequential amendment order. The object of this amendment order is to amend Section 7(3) of the English 1985 Act, which provides for the reception of office copies of English registered enduring powers throughout the United Kingdom as evidence of their contents and also of the fact that they have been registered. The consequential amendment order extends this provision to office copies of Northern Ireland registered enduring powers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th April be approved.—(Lord Lyell).
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has once again given the House a comprehensive explanation of the provisions of the order and of its significance. The Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 was welcomed in every corner of your Lordships' House when it was introduced in 1985. I am sure that relatives, friends and professional people who have charge of the property and affairs of elderly people in Northern Ireland will similarly welcome this important draft order.
The 1985 Act was not only well received in your Lordships' House, but it has been very well received in England and Wales. It has been extensively used. Clearly the concept of an enduring power of attorney—in other words a power of attorney that will endure in spite of the supervening mental

537
incapacity of the donor of the power—has met a very real need. I welcome the draft order.
The Minister has explained what the order will achieve, but it will have to be read in due course in conjunction with the important regulations which are yet to be issued by the department. I confine myself for a minute or two to the order. I note that it reproduces all the sections of the 1985 Act apart from Section 3(3), which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has referred to, and also Section 2(6). As far as I can see it does not reproduce Section 2(6). The subsection reads:
"Where an instrument differs in an immaterial respect in form or mode of expression from the prescribed form the instrument shall be treated as sufficient in point of form and expression".
That is a valuable saving provision. I may have missed this provision in the draft order, but, unless I have missed it, can the Minister explain why this has been omitted from the draft order? It is extremely important that the power when executed should be in the prescribed form as laid down by the regulations. But the power may not follow the prescribed form in some immaterial respect. In that event would the power be valid in Northern Ireland?
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has explained the significance of Article 5(3). I was fascinated by his explanation. I am sure that it must be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland.
The order refers in a number of articles to the regulations to be made by the department. I should mention to the House that experience over the last 18 months has shown that the regulations which were made under the 1985 Act are by now seen to be in need of provision. A number of practical difficulties or uncertainties have been encountered. These have been the subject of two very important articles by Mr. P.D. Lewis, an Assistant Public Trustee, published in the Law Society Gazette. They are well worth reading. Some points have been the subject of a hearing before the Master, but I am not aware of a hearing before a judge of the Court of Protection.
I do not propose to detail the almost two dozen points of uncertainty and difficulty arising out of the regulations, but we want an assurance from the Minister that the regulations to be made by the Northern Ireland Office will incorporate all the lessons that have been learned in England and Wales since the regulations were made under the terms of the 1985 Act. With those few comments, I heartily approve the order.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, we are again on technical lawyers' ground and I do not propose to argue at length on a subject in which I am not qualified. I wish to raise one matter on which I am not quite clear but which interests me for personal reasons. It relates to Article 5(4). This enables someone who has enduring powers of attorney to look after his own interest if it is in line with what the donor might be expected to do or have done. If the donor is suffering from mental disability, who will, where reasonable, contest any such procedure for him or her? Subject to this point, I support the two orders.
8 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to thank the two noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a number of points. He was kind enough to give me some indication of what might be in his mind on this measure so at least I had some warning. The noble Lord asked about Articles 5(3) and 3(3) in England and Wales. I hope that I covered that first query in my opening remarks.
The noble Lord also said that he was a little worried about the provision corresponding to Section 2(6) of the 1985 Act in England and Wales, which I am given to understand allows for immaterial departures from the prescribed form. I think the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will agree with me that we should leave this definition of immaterial departures et alia to the lawyers. I am advised that this point is already covered in the general provision, which may be in umbrella form, of Section 21 of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. This allows for variations in statutory forms.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also inquired about the regulations. We are studying very carefully the form of the regulations, which, naturally, have yet to be made for Northern Ireland. We shall take account of the experience of the measures in England and Wales and indeed of the points made by the noble Lord. He has been merciful and has not raised 24 points with me this evening but I am sure that those 24 points will be known to my office and we shall certainly take notice of them. The noble Lord will be gratified that the order was generally welcomed when we had consultation around Northern Ireland. Two of the main bodies which welcomed the order were the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the General Consumer Society for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, although not a lawyer, courageously ventured into Article 5(4) dealing with the power which enabled the attorney to benefit himself or others without the consent of the donor to the extent that he—the attorney—acts as the donor might have acted or does what the donor might have been expected to do to meet the attorney's or any other person's needs. I hope that that goes some way to assisting the curiosity and concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. However, I give this proviso. Provided the attorney acts within the limits of paragraph (4) as set out in Article 5, he does not need the consent of the court to any action which he may take. Article 5(4) spells out what the attorney might wish to do. The third line of paragraph 4 says,
"(without obtaining any consent) act under the power so as to benefit himself or other persons … to the following extent but no further".
Subparagraphs (a) and (b) would give reasonable grounds for the attorney to act either as the donor would have been expected to act himself or as he, the donor, might have expected his attorney to have acted, given that the donor would have recognised that he would not be able to take action of the type which we are discussing this evening. Article 5(4) gives reasonable grounds to the attorney to act in accordance with the apparent wishes of the donor;

539
and watching over all of his activities there is still the court. That is a fairly long-term hypothesis and goes a good way beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, had in mind.
I hope that I have covered the noble Lord's point. I salute him for his courage in venturing into something of a legal area. If I have not covered it totally tonight, I shall amplify as necessary in writing, with, I hope, clarity and brevity. I trust that I have covered all the queries on the order. I am immensely grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on the three orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1987
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th April be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th April be approved.—(Lord Lye11.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.8 to 8.10 p.m.]

Channel Tunnel Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 36 [Supplementary provisions with respect to acquisition of land]:
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 27, line 37, at end insert—
"(7) Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, in assessing the compensation to be paid in respect of any interest in and acquired under this Act, account shall be taken of any increase in the value of that interest which is attributable to the proposed or actual construction of the facilities mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (d) of section 1(7) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: During the five and a half years in which I have had the privilege of being a Member of this House I have not spoken very often, let alone been brave enough to move an amendment. On the last occasion on which I spoke it was for one minute and seventeen seconds, after which I was bought a drink by a Member of the Government Front Bench on the undertaking that I would persuade my Cross-Bench colleagues to follow my example. I embark therefore with some trepidation and regret that I may detain the Committee slightly longer on this occasion.
This amendment is coupled with Amendment No. 137. I should like to emphasise first that there is no
540
disagreement with the use of compulsory purchase powers to acquire the land for the terminal site of the Channel Tunnel. The terminal cannot be built just anywhere. The amendment seeks to ensure that where land is compulsorily acquired for essential commercial purposes full development value should be paid.
Secondly, I assure the Committee that this is not in any way a local or provincial effort in the South-East to put right what is widely regarded as an injustice, but is an attempt to clarify and I hope to correct the basis of compensation paid where land is acquired by compulsory purchase on behalf of enterprises which are strictly commercial. This is not a matter of interest solely to property owners in the immediate vicinity of the Channel Tunnel terminal; it is of considerable concern to property owners everywhere.
This Government have already returned to the private sector a considerable number of state-owned corporations and are about to return some more. These enterprises when state controlled have been able to use compulsory purchase powers and pay compensation under existing use value terms. It is right that this should continue to be so where the land being acquired is needed for the development of the country's basic infrastructure, road, rail, etc., but I emphasise the word "basic".
Where land is required for the ancillary activities associated with such aspects—for example, duty free shops, motorway services, retail shops or reservoir yacht clubs—such land should be paid for at full development value. Is it equitable that a profit-making enterprise should be subsidised by being able to acquire its commercial site at existing use value? I am told, for instance, that the annual turnover on a duty-free shop may be as high as £4,000 per square foot, as opposed to £1,600 per square foot at Marks and Spencer in Oxford Street.
The Channel Tunnel is, we are told, a private enterprise commercial venture in which no government money is involved, but is not the land purchased by the Government for the terminal being leased to Eurotunnel on favourable terms? Is not this a government subsidy to the operators at the expense of those dispossessed? If for any reason the tunnel is not built, I understand the land will not be offered to the orginal owners at acquisition prices but sold at full development value with planning permission. If that is so, that is an additional reason for full development value to be paid to the original owners. If full development value is not paid, surely in the event of the tunnel not being built the Crichel Down principle should apply.
The Minister will, I am sure, tell the Committee that the owners of land at the Channel Tunnel terminal have all settled. I understand that not all contracts have been exchanged, but even if they have all settled that should not make it impossible to make additional payments if the Committee agrees to make this amendment. It should be borne in mind that many landowners have agreed terms with Eurotunnel under the pressure of having otherwise to deal with the district valuer.
I am sure that the Minister will also tell the Committee that there are precedents for the

541
procedures as laid down in this Bill. Just because there are precedents they need not necessarily be right. I am sure that the Minister will tell the Committee that the Channel Tunnel is a special case, but how many more special cases are there to be in the future? I contend that a multiplicity of special cases makes bad law.
How many more commercial enterprises are to be assisted to purchase at favourable terms before this injustice is corrected? With the Government's programme of privatisation the whole spectrum of the acquisition of property has changed. The private companies thus created will inherit, or have inherited, compulsory purchase powers. Surely it is time to clarify and correct the injustices and anomalies that the change has brought about. The situation today is not comparable to that of 10 years ago. Even if the Minister suggests a review of all the procedures one must ask when and how long it will take, and how many more special cases would have passed along the motorway before it happens.
I once again emphasise that these compensation terms under compulsory purchase are not just a matter of concern to a corner of South-East England. They are of concern not only to those affected by the proposed Channel Tunnel terminal but also to those whose land may be acquired in the future for commercial developments ancillary to new motorways, reservoirs or airport extensions.
There is a substantial matter of principle involved, brought about to a large extent by the Government's policies of privatisation. I am not criticising that policy. As the Government have moved to support and encourage free enterprise surely they must also move to correct the situations that that policy has brought about. The Government have changed the circumstances; they should accept that they have to change the character.
I accept that there may be a need for compulsory purchase powers to apply to a development of this nature even though it is to be carried out by a private company, but I do not accept that where that company uses such powers for development of a purely commercial nature it should benefit from a compensation code which was evolved for schemes of public benefit. A similar amendment was considered at the Committee stage in the other place and defeated only on the casting vote of the chairman of that Committee. It was supported by members of all parties. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I wish to support the powerful case move by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, with such strength and lucidity. Clearly there will be injustices here. Owner-occupying farmers, as well as other landowners, will be dispossessed in circumstances in which there will not be a transaction between willing buyer and willing seller because there will be no willing sellers if the land is to be parted with merely at existing use values. The developers, who will be the buyers and whose position is reinforced by an Act of Parliament, will be in a strong position to make killings out of a resale, if that is the right expression. However, the developers will undoubtedly be able to resell the land at development values to people
542
operating hotels, workshops and, on a smaller scale, cafes, newspaper offices and goodness knows what. That presumably will apply even to Government departments, such as the Post Office, and to privatised industries, such as British Telecom, which want to occupy some of the land, and the developers will be able to charge them a proper development value. Therefore I suggest that there is an injustice.
I hope that in replying my noble friend will not say, "Yes, there may be an injustice or there may not, but this is not the moment to change the law". Surely if the law contains, or results in, a manifest injustice which will operate in a particular case, that injustice should not be perpetuated simply because the Government are unable or unwilling to find time to have the law changed on a broader basis in the reasonable future. So often we hear the argument, "No, this may he a good thing but we cannot do it now because we must do it right across the board or not at all", even though it results in or perpetuates an injustice. I hope that on this occasion, as it is manifest that there will be an injustice unless something on the lines of this amendment is accepted, my noble friend will consider the matter sympathetically.
The Marquess of Salisbury: I also wish to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. I entirely agree with what the last speaker said. It seems to me that one of the reasons this procedure has been selected, regardless of its impact on individuals, is that it is an easy way of dealing with a complicated problem. It enables the Government to push through the legislation perhaps far quicker than under any other method of arbitration or purchase by agreement. I do not know whether the Government intend to lease the land to operators at concessionary rates, or whether they are to ask the full market value, but in either case it will be achieved at the expense of the original landowner. It may be that because there are few landowners in this case Her Majesty's Government feel that they can ride roughshod over them.
I should like to look back at what happened in previous debates on other town and country planning Bills. I looked at the 1947 Bill, and in your Lordships' House it appears that the then Government suggested that under planning Bills as proposed only a few rich people would be affected, notably Dukes and Earls. In reply to that debate my father noted that Marquesses were not included. However, he pointed out that a great many small landowners would suffer considerable hardship; and that in any event there should be one law for everyone and not one for the rich and one for the poor.
The general principle on which I understood the Conservative Party was to operate with regard to the valuation of land, and which was adopted by the Conservative Party, was enunciated by the then Lord Chancellor, the late Lord Kilmuir. In introducing to your Lordships' House the Second Reading of the 1959 Town and Country Planning Bill he said:
"My Lords, the main purpose of this Bill is to put compensation for compulsory acquisition of land on a market value basis. The Bill will put right what has come to be very widely felt as an injustice—the two-price system; one for private sales, the other for public or compulsory purchases".

543
It will be recalled that the Franks Committee went out of its way to comment on its dissatisfaction with the procedures relating to land which arises from the basis of compensation. Further in the same speech the late Lord Kilmuir said:
"The new basis of compensation under the Bill is founded on the principle that the owner of land acquired should receive the value which he could expect to get for his land in a private sale in the open market if there were no proposal by any public authority to buy the land".
That seems to be quite clear and whether one is talking about compensation or land values it does not appear that the principle is different.
It seems to me that it does not tally with the proposals in the present Bill, for by using the compulsory purchase procedure Her Majesty's Government have sidestepped the guidelines as laid down by Lord Kilmuir when referring to the process of creating two values for land. We know that the value of this land will escalate enormously once the Bill becomes law. I suggest that the underlying value of the land earmarked for development is clearly higher than the agricultural value, and that private buyers would surely be willing to pay a higher price. In any event, in this case the cost of the acquisition of land is peanuts in relation to the total cost of the scheme. I quote Lord Kilmuir again:
"By and large, purchasers of land will not now pay development value unless they are certain that they will be able to develop the land; and they cannot be certain of this unless planning permission has been given. Development values, therefore, depend on planning permissions".
In this case planning consent will clearly be forthcoming.
Lord Kilmuir went further and said:
"There is obviously a strong sense of grievance if land is bought from an owner at a low price for some public purpose and it is then sold at a substantially higher price for a different purpose".
I do not think that the principle is impaired whether it is for a different purpose or for leasing. As the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has already pointed out, if Her Majesty's Government are relying on precedents, they should rely on good ones. I believe that any likely precedents affecting this case should be classified as bad.
One is dealing with something of a jungle when dealing with planning and valuations. However, I should like to draw your attention to what appears to be a similar state of affairs with a different outcome. We know that when a county draws up a structure plan part of the land in that plan is for one development or another. In that case one can have two fields side by side. One will retain its agricultural value and the other, being sold to developers and having planning consent, will have an enormously enhanced value of perhaps 200 times that of the field next door. But in this case the owner of the land will get the full benefit of the sale whether it is sold to a private developer or to a local authority. There are many other cases, but I shall not detain the Committee any longer.
I should like to make one more quick quotation from Lord Kilmuir. He said:
"We … need to know the answer to the question: 'With what planning permissions could the land be expected to be sold in the open
544
market if it were not wanted by a public authority?"'.—[Official Report, 14/4/59; cols. 578–583.]
For all these reasons, in this case it is surely right to establish what is equitable. What this Bill proposes is not. By adopting the route of compulsory purchase Her Majesty's Government are guilty of a deliberate attempt to prevent the landowners obtaining a reasonable value for their land. This seems to me a grave injustice. The amendment seeks to redress this and I therefore support it.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I hope the Committee will support this amendment for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and by my noble friends Lord Salisbury and Lord Renton. I do not want to repeat the points they have made but I hope that the Committee will seize the real difference between compulsory purchase compensation in the public interest for infrastructure, as opposed to compensation for private commercial enterprises as envisaged in this Bill and indeed, as I see it, to be envisaged in future privatisation Bills.
First, I must point out something that Members of the Committee all know and my noble friend Lord Belstead better than anyone. Agriculture at the moment is facing possibly the most difficult period it has faced since the 1920s. We are all at a loss as to how to deal with the problem and concerned that it is resulting in the whole rural economy suffering. One painless way which has been mentioned by many of your Lordships, and not least by Sub-Committee D, is taking land out of agricultural production. Such a policy will not help the rural economy at all unless the proper, true compensation returns to the owner, and under this Bill it will not. It will go to the speculator. It will go to the City yuppie, to the developer—call them what you like—but it will not go to the real owner.
Our amendment would correct such an injustice so detrimental to our rural well-being. I shall give just one small example to illustrate this point. Take the tenant dairy farmer who is evicted (I use the word "evicted" probably incorrectly) under the present code. He is paid a derisory figure, depending on the value of the land. Unless development value is added to this sum it will in no way allow him to start again, not necessarily in farming—far from it—but in some other business. I totally fail to understand why in such a case he is not even given roll-over relief on his dairy quota; but that is another point.
Secondly, I must point out something else which worries me. I call it "fair trading". This was a point made most forcibly by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in the Second Reading debate on 16th February (at col. 903 of Hansard). How can it be fair in respect of those who set up shops, in the Channel Tunnel area in this case, to pay only agricultural prices for their land, whereas next-door—in Dover maybe—a similar trader would have to pay the market rate? If the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, were here today—I believe he has a shop in Dover—I think he would feel fairly strongly about this.
I believe that this amendment is a precedent for compulsory purchase orders in future privatisations,

545
and it is vital. We are promised more privatisation in the interests of greater efficiency and in returning money and power back to the individual. Fine, but let these compensation terms be reasonable and let them be paid to the individual.
I have been over this compensation course, if I may say so, many times before, not least in connection with the 1981 Act, with my noble friend Lord Caithness, who I see is in the Chamber. I accept that the Government have listened and that they have made some alterations. What is more important, they have given us hope that there is the chance of a more reasonable code. For instance, my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Mitchell, promised to look at this specific point (at cols. 527 and 532 of Hansard) in Committee on 15th January. I ask my noble friend Lord Belstead what is happening.
I just cannot accept the, "Yes, Minister", approach that says, "We have never done anything like this before, Minister. Indeed it is not allowed for in the 1961 compensation code". My noble friend Lord Renton made that point very forcibly a moment ago.
The situation is totally different today. First, this is 1987 and not 1961. In my opinion the Government are, quite correctly, entering upon a massive scheme of privatisation—privatisation for commercial and profitable purposes. I always thought the Government believed that wealth should be held by the individual, and so I ask my noble friend to ensure that the Government practise what they preach. If he cannot accept the amendment this evening, I ask him to come back to your Lordships later with something to show that the Government have at least seized the merit of our argument.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like to support this amendment but I do so with considerable trepidation because my involvement is massive. It is necessary for me to go into it in some detail so that the Committee can judge just where I stand and whether I am biased. Then I hope I shall be allowed to continue to talk about the principle of this matter, at least to some extent.
The involvement I have is that of a landowner. 1 own the land on which the portal of the tunnel is to be built, with a part of the terminal. The Committee will know that the tunnel then passes beneath the hill and almost emerges again on my land, where there is a longish section of cut-and-fill tunnel, and I shall obviously be involved with it in some way or another. Further than that, I have personal ownership within the town of Folkestone and I was a party to forming a trust some time ago which now has considerable ownership there. Furthermore, and perhaps contrary to what may be believed, I have not settled with Eurotunnel as yet. I know that in another place it was believed by some people that Eurotunnel had settled with the relatively few landowners in the district. That is not so in my case.
Having said that, perhaps I can encapsulate my comments by saying that my involvement cannot be that far behind that of the Prime Minister, the President of France and the chairman of Eurotunnel
546
himself. But there is a principle here to be thought of very carefully indeed in view, as my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said, of the future privatisation schemes that may come along.
In the past compulsory purchase of land has been well understood. It may on occasions have been resented but it has been well understood, and on the whole I think the law has worked extremely well. The person who owned the land was not allowed to anticipate what was going on in regard to that piece of land but was allowed to argue with the district valuer in terms of what perhaps lay round and about and what the future might hold in the way of perhaps housing development, commercial development or what-have-you. Compulsory purchase was used for the kind of infrastructure that has already been described; namely, hospitals, roads, schools and developments of that kind. It seemed and still seems to me that that is a very proper and right way to go about the matter.
Now we have a different situation on our hands. For many reasons of their own—and obviously for reasons of the treaty and making arrangements with France among other things—the Government have decided that compulsory purchase must be used in this case. So the seller is forced to sell under the rules by which he would have been forced to sell by reason of matters such as infrastructure, which are so important to the community. However, not everybody feels that the tunnel is best for the community; some people believe that the community will survive very well without the tunnel. Most people in the district are against it, whether they live in Folkestone or in Dover.
However, worse still to me is that the land is to be bought at existing use value, which is a very small value, and then leased on to Eurotunnel, which is a commercial concern beholden to its shareholders. Let us make no mistake about it; Eurotunnel exists to make money, and for no other reason whatsoever. Other people in the Government may feel that it is a good thing to have a tunnel but so far as concerns Eurotunnel, it is out to make money for its backers and its shareholders.
So I believe that we are presented with a position in which money is being taken under compulsion from one citizen and put into the purse of another citizen, the first citizen being a landowner, whether large or small, and the second being the shareholder of Eurotunnel. I suggest that that is entirely wrong and unfair and is a very un-English way to go about it. Furthermore it is a very dangerous way. We have touched on what may or may not be precedents in the past but to have this measure as it now stands as a precedent for the future is extremely dangerous.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I shall speak very briefly on this amendment. It is interesting that we have spent more time on it than we did discussing the safety aspects earlier. I accept the principle of the amendment. I think that the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is now sitting as deputy chairman of the committee, about sheer

547
fairness was absolutely reasonable. This is a commercial venture and the land will be taken for purely commercial reasons, or rather it may partly be for social reasons, because of the nature of the tunnel itself, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said, the purpose of building the tunnel is for profit. It may turn out to be of convenience to people but that is not why it is being built.
The idea that land should be acquired compulsorily by one group of people from another group of people and then later sold on at a greatly enhanced value seems to be quite wrong, although when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was speaking I had the feeling that I should not be at all surprised to find that there are a few Marquesses and Earls who will have a stake in the Channel Tunnel when it gets going and they may very well have money loosed from one pocket to get it back in another. However, many of the points that have been raised have already been considered by my colleagues in another place when they discussed this Bill.
I find myself in a strange position in supporting the landowners of England in their sale of land, from wherever they originally got it, hoping that they will get a higher development price for it. However, the fairness of the situation indicates that this is the only way. Like my colleagues in another place, I support this amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before the noble Lord sits down I should like to put his mind at rest. He is also supporting the tenants. That may make him feel a little happier.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: Some of my noble friends and the noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Carmichael, have argued forcefully that compulsory purchase compensation as a matter of principle is unjust if it is to be in favour of a commercial undertaking which is then going to benefit from the compulsory acquisition of the land concerned. First of all I should like to make the point that this Bill is applying the compensation code, which so far as I know has been the law of the land for some time. Indeed, it is the law applying to both commerical and non-commercial projects. This amendment seeks to create a unique exception by providing for enhanced compensation for some but not all of the compulsory acquisitions authorised by the Bill. Under the code the valuation by the district valuer with the right of appeal to the land tribunal is based on the market value of land: namely, the price a willing seller would realise on the open market in the absence of the development for which the land is being taken.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury compared this argument about the basis of paying compensation very unfavourably to the comments of the late Lord Kilmuir when he was introducing the 1959 planning Act. I should like to say to my noble friend that the provisions of the 1959 Act are those which are in
548
force now and which are being applied by this present Bill. The 1959 Act corrected the previously unfair compensation provisions by ensuring that compensation ought to be based on the market value of the land being taken reflecting what the owner actually loses.
However, there is a little more to the story than that because the market value of land of course will reflect any existing planning permissions and may reflect an element of hope value, which is the value of the land based on the possibility that planning permission for a certain type of development might in the future be given; alternatively, those affected can apply to the local planning authority for a certificate of appropriate alternative development under Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. In effect, such a certificate is a form of hypothetical planning permission, which can have the effect of increasing the value of the land for compensation purposes. So someone who is dispossessed of land by the threat of compulsory purchase is not just left under the law as it stands and the code as we have it with just the existing value. There can be hope value and there is Section 17 concerning alternative development certificates.
I have the feeling that the Committee is very well versed in this matter. Nonetheless I clearly received the message from the Committee that it was felt to be unfair. My noble friend Lord Cornwallis started the debate by saying that it was a question of the general principle. I think that some of the members of the Committee, and in particular my noble friend Lord Radnor, have targeted their remarks on this Bill and said that this basis of compensation is unfair in the case of this particular Bill.
Perhaps I may say in reply that there are many precedents for compulsory purchase powers and for the compensation code applying to works by private developers. The history of compulsory purchase largely begins with the private Bills promoted by railway companies in the last century and the standard provisions in the resulting Acts have developed into the present code. There are more recent precedents of private Bills authorising compulsory purchase by private sector bodies for commercial purposes such as oil terminals and private ports, and compulsory purchase orders have been used by public sector bodies to enable private enterprise developments, notably in town centres. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will forgive me for saying that although I know he has sided with my noble friends on this matter, if he looks back through the precedents he will find that the last kind of example has surely been used on many occasions when there have been new housing developments around the country.
I am simply saying that the arguments for compulsory purchase at standard compensation are there in the law and in the code and they are particularly strong where the project is in the national interest. I would just remind the Committee that the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, so far as the national interest is concerned, said that it thought the project would bring immense opportunities for

549
the generation of industrial and commercial development throughout the United Kingdom.
There is, however, a further argument, and it was put with some force by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. Both expressed concern that authorities or indeed privatised undertakings under legislation may compulsorily acquire land, and possibly more land than they really need, through compulsory purchase and then develop the land for some non-essential uses, but uses which would be of great benefit to add to the particular businesses. Nothing is certain in this life, I know, but I should like to assure my noble friends that this is by no means likely to happen. Compulsory purchases must always be justified, either at a public inquiry or to Parliament. The Secretary of State would not confirm a compulsory purchase order if there were not a reasonable prospect of the purpose for which the land was being taken being achieved in the foreseeable future. As to whether that purpose is a desirable purpose, one must, of course, have a look at the particular case at the particular time.
So perhaps I may finally come to the particular case. Once again my noble friends have suggested to the Committee that there is an injustice here. In making its case, this amendment is seeking to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial parts of the tunnel project. The actual tunnel does not fall within the scope of the amendments, being seen by your Lordships who are moving the amendments as part of the public infrastructure, but the terminals do fall within the scope of these amendments. But what public benefit is a tunnel without the means of getting into it? Without the old Dover colliery site, commercial, the non-commercial tunnel could not anyway have been built at all. Moreover, there would surely be unfairness to those landowners who would not benefit from this amendment; compensation should surely reflect the losses which landowners incur, not the totally different value which the development may impart to the land.
So in answer to this amendment, I am, I think, seeking to say two things. First of all, with respect, I do not think that the ways in which these amendments are drawn are themselves very fair, for the reasons which I have just given in those last few remarks. Secondly, if my noble friend Lord Renton will forgive me for saying so, I feel constrained to say that I do not think it is desirable to seek amendments of general principle to a Bill of this kind which is dealing with one specific project.
Nonetheless, my noble friend Lord Radnor made a plea that there is a principle here which ought to be considered with great care. The farthest I can go this evening is to say that I have heard the case which has been put forward by my noble friends and the noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and I assure the Committee that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friends to what has been said in this Committee. I also give an assurance that the Government will take note of the views which have been expressed in this Committee on compensation policy as a whole.
550
However, I am afraid I cannot go further than that on this occasion. I am sure that your Lordships will accept—and I hope you do so—that this really is not the moment to consider amendments to the general law. It is on that final ground that I hope the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Cornwallis: First, I thank the Minister for that summing up and reply. I note with great interest the remarks which he makes with regard to the general principle. I think the problem with which all of us are faced is that when it comes to trying to bring forward a general principle in any Bill it is never the right Bill in which to bring it forward. If we are not very careful, we shall go from Bill to Bill with the principle unresolved and unstated. It is difficult to resolve the situation in those circumstances.
Those with whom I consulted before moving the amendment were quite clear in advising me that this was not the way to bring this particular principle forward. But what other way do we have of bringing the principle forward? So I hope that if I have understood the Minister correctly, he will use his best endeavours to bring what we believe to be a movement of the goalposts by the Government to the notice of the Minister concerned and that we may―hopefully perhaps before the Report stage of the Bill—have some further message from him on how this can be looked at.
The Minister mentioned Section 17 in his remarks. We are well aware of the uses of Section 17 but it is hardly applicable when the land concerned has been known to be the terminal of the Channel Tunnel for something close upon 100 years. I do not think that anybody in those circumstances could ever have applied for a Section 17 certificate.
Many of the other examples which the Minister cited have been carried out by public corporations and not by private enterprise. I would remind the Minister that when the main railways were put forward, of course there was no development value and no planning. Even today, if you wish to develop the docks or something of that sort, I believe you will have to put forward a Private Bill. Within that Private Bill it is necessary to spell out in complete detail the activities that the enterprise will indulge in and everything must be proved by the committee concerned.
The Channel Tunnel terminal is a catch-all. Nobody explains which piece of land will be needed for what, or what it will be needed for in detail, so I do not believe, the circumstances concerned are entirely the same. Nonetheless, in view of the Minister's attitude to the amendment, with the hope that we may hear more from him before the next stage of the Bill and reserving the right perhaps to bring it forward at the next stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Extension of Railways Board's powers in connection with through services]:
9 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 28, line 38, leave out ("requisite") and insert ("expedient")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 83 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 84, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108. These are technical amendments to clarify and confirm the powers of the British Railways Board to operate abroad and to enter into contracts with foreign operators and the concessionaires. I think they are more or less self-explanatory but if not I shall be happy to give a more detailed explanation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 28, line 41, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("and there shall be added at the end—
"(g) to do anything which appears to the Board to be expedient for the purposes of or in connection with the provision by the Board or railway services outside Great Britain."
(2)It is within the power of the Railways Board to enter into a contract with any person operating railways services through the tunnel system for the passage of any train of any such person over or along any railway of the Board; and this section gives any person with whom the Board have entered into such a contract authority to use any railway of the board in accordance with that contract in so far as such authority is not given by any other enactment.
(3)The assumption by the Railways Board, under any contract with the Concessionaires under which the Board are permitted to use the tunnel system, of any obligations with respect to the exercise of any of their powers, shall not be regarded (if it would be so regarded apart from this provision) as incompatible with the proper exercise of those or any other of their powers.).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 83.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 85:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Inland customs clearance facilities
—(1) The Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a)the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

(b);the Railways Board; and

(c)such other persons as he considers to be relevant; with a view to determining whether it would be desirable for there to be established a network of inland customs clearance facilities for the purpose of enabling certain goods entering and leaving the United Kingdom by means of the tunnel system to be afforded customs clearance otherwise than in the county of Kent.

(2) In determining that question the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability—

(a) of facilitating the prompt delivery of goods to their ultimate destinations; and

(b) of promoting economic growth and employment opportunities throughout the United Kingdom.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report containing the results of his determination under this section not later than 1st August 1988.").
The noble Lord said: Throughout our consideration of the Bill we have emphasised that we
552
must make it offer the utmost value for the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation exercise with the commissioners of Customs and Excise, British Rail and other relevant persons to determine whether it would be desirable for there to be established a network of inland customs clearance facilities to enable certain goods being conveyed by means of the tunnel system to be afforded customs clearance at places other than the proposed clearance depot at Ashford, Kent.
The new clause is based upon an amendment proposed in a Standing Committee in another place, where it was rejected by only one vote. At that stage the Government's reasons for urging its rejection were not at all convincing and, moreover, it is important to ascertain today if we can from the Minister what progress, if any, has been made by British Rail in carrying out its own review of the need for a pattern of inland clearance depots.
It is particularly important to ensure that the various regions of the United Kingdom are able to derive the maximum possible benefit from any trading opportunities provided by the tunnel. In particular, unless there is an efficient transport infrastructure for moving components and raw materials to assembling and manufacturing points, British industry will increasingly find itself at a disadvantage compared with France and certain other EC countries.
The establishment of a network of inland customs clearance facilities would enable the industries of the various regions to expedite their trade, thus benefiting those regions as a whole. That point was made very strongly in the first report of the House of Commons Transport Committee on the Channel link. I shall not read out that section but for those who may wish to read it it is in paragraph 13(v) on page 207 of the report.
However, in paragraph 145 of the Select Committee report your Lordships report that you agree a modest amendment to the Bill to ensure that British Rail will focus resources on the dispersal of rail traffic from London to the regions. It is also important to quote paragraph 146 of the Select Committee report, which states:
"Goods for export must not only be able to travel efficiently, they need to be cleared for customs before doing so. Traditionally in the United Kingdom customs clearance is carried out at sea and air ports. There are only some 22 inland clearance depots in the country compared with 240 in France. At present the criteria adopted for considering whether such depots should he established include a requirement for 30,000 customs entries per annum. The Committee consider that British Rail and the Customs and Excise should urgently re-examine these criteria in order to help industry exploit the advantages of the tunnel project on a national scale.".
In paragraph 26 of their response the Government summarily dismiss the recommendation of the Select Committee that BR and the Customs and Excise should urgently re-examine the criteria. That was not asking a great deal.
But I find that paragraph 26 of the Government'sresponse brings in a new argument. They say that in addition to the 22 inland clearance depots in the

553
United Kingdom there are now some 370 traders who are approved for customs clearance of either imports or exports at their own premises. It is very strange that that was not an argument used at all in the other place, and the only reference that the Government make to a re-examination of the criteria is that, while normally a minimum throughput of 30,000 customs entries per annum is required, regional factors are fully taken into account when considering proposals for new inland clearance depots.
It seems as if the Government, as someone remarked on another amendment, move the goalposts when they want an argument. The proposed new clause seeks merely to impose on the Secretary of State a duty to investigate and report to Parliament by 1st August next year. That is 12 months. It does not compel the Secretary of State to decide in favour of any particular network of customs clearance facilities or indeed any network at all. It is a very modest proposal but nonetheless a very important one and I hope that the Minister will feel that he can accept the principle that there shall be further consultations with the Customs and Excise commissioners, the railways board and such other persons and that Parliament shall have a report on those discussions.
Unless something of that kind is done we shall not be making the maximum use of the tunnel. From this Bench we have argued right the way through that the one big success from the tunnel can be the use of freight transport from all parts of the UK and this amendment is directed to that end. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we fully support the amendment from these Benches. It is very much in the category of the discussions that we were having last Thursday on the necessity for immigration and customs officials to be on passenger trains. I believe in many ways this is more important.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said and as I have said from these Benches on many occasions, the major justification for the existence of the tunnel at all is the ability of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom to reach the markets in the Continent. Quite clearly if that is going to happen in an efficient way there must be an extension of the facilities in the inland depots.
It seems to me that the criteria that are being applied are either being dictated by the Treasury or by someone who is not taking into account the existence of the tunnel at all. I beg of the Government, even at this late stage, to modify their view on this whole question of inland customs facilities.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We are certainly in agreement that one of the main aims in building the tunnel is that the maximum use of the tunnel should be brought to all regions of the country, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, in terms of freight. We have discussed passengers who will
554
disperse through the whole of the country. However, in that regard the tunnel will be competing with the airlines, and freight is where great benefits may be seen.
I wish to make two main points. First, it is necessary to disentangle inland Customs clearance from the wider issue of the development of international rail services beyond London. There is obviously some connection between the two, but inland Customs clearance depots, or ICDs, as such, are not the key factor in determining how much freight traffic British Rail will be able to attract to its international services. For example, for freight moving in wagon loads to or from private sidings, Customs clearance can be carried out satisfactorily from the trader's point of view at any convenient point between his premises and the tunnel.
A network of ICDs cannot be drawn up in a vacuum. It must depend on the likely pattern of demand for freight services when the tunnel opens. British Rail is investigating the potential market, and this work will provide part of the input to the plan which it is required to draw up under Clause 39. It is only when the market has been identified that British Rail will be a position to identify possible sites for inland clearance depots. An ICD is most unlikely by itself to stimulate a demand which would not otherwise be there.
The Clause 39 plan will identify any sites where British Rail considers that an additional ICD is required. It is already looking at the question. It does not need any prompting from the Secretary of State to examine the role of ICDs. It will then need to discuss with the Customs authorities the requirements it has identified. If there are problems, the Secretary of State is sure to become involved. But it would not be appropriate for him to take the lead in planning a network of facilities which depends crucially on the demand which it is British Rail's responsibility to identify.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the evidence before the Select Committee and the Government's response to it concerning the question of the criteria for ICDs. The Select Committee commented on the small number of these depots and recommended that the basic requirement of 30,000 customs entries a year should be reviewed. As the Committee will know, the Government's response to the committee's report has recently been published. It pointed out that the comparison that has been drawn between the scales of inland clearance in France and the United Kingdom is misleading. In addition to the 22 ICDs in the United Kingdom, there are some 370 traders who are approved for customs clearance of either imports or exports at their own premises. I should have thought that that was probably a more favourable way of doing things than that which the French have.
Following a Rayner study in 1983 and an internal review in 1985, the Customs authorities are now pursuing a policy of concentrating resources at those ports, airports and ICDs where there is sufficient traffic to justify full-time facilities. Customs resources

555
are not unlimited, and it is obviously sensible and in the interests of traders as a whole that the available resources should be deployed in the most cost-effective manner.
The recommendations of the 1985 review and the revised criteria it established for approving ICDs were published and discussed with the trade associations. While normally a minimum throughput of 30,000 Customs entries per annum is required, this is not a rigid standard and regional factors are fully taken into account when considering proposals for new ICDs. The Government do not therefore accept that there is a case for re-examining the criteria at the present time.
In the light of what I have said, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. We are certainly agreed on the importance of seeing that the benefits of the tunnel spread through all the regions. However, I think we can accomplish that without necessarily having more ICDs. Our method of licensing traders for direct Customs clearance is in fact the better one, in many ways.
Lord Sefton of Garston: There were two phrases used by the Minister which gave me cause for concern. I was concerned not because he used the sentences but because it seems to me that no one has grasped the very real point that if we are going along with an organisation such as British Rail functioning "only when the market has been identified" and "where there is sufficient traffic to justify the facilities", then this country will get nowhere at all, and will get there very fast if it is in competition with France. The whole point that has been made over the last 40 years is that if, quite rightly, our economy is to grow, and to grow considerably quicker than it is doing at the moment from the point of view of 3 million people, then we must plan and put in situ the facilities to make that growth possible. We do not have to wait till the demand justifies it.
As a small example of the point I am making, at Liverpool's Seaforth container depot British Rail tore up the railway service to one of the biggest container depots in the UK. They said "We will look at it again when the trade coming through Liverpool justifies the provision of that rail link". How much better would it have been if that rail link had been in place? How much quicker would the Liverpool container depot have grown if British Rail had put it in first? I know that the Minister has had a busy day and that the briefs must come thick and fast; it must be awful to sort out the common sense, if there is any, in them. However, I appeal to him not just from the point of view of British Rail, but because of the kind of infrastructure that we need to lay down in advance in order to make our economy efficient.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I understand what the Minister is saying about traders who have their own customs facilities, but those are not the traders about whom
556
we are talking. These days, the Government are always talking about improving the situation in the inner cities and helping small businessmen. I know that the presence of ICDs would not in itself stimulate trade, but it is intangibles such as these that inhibit export trade. If the small businessman in an inner city finds it impossible to put his goods through an ICD, he will not look for export business which is surely available if he goes in search of it. In so far as this Channel Tunnel opens up tremendous possibilities for all sorts of people in this country to find new markets in Europe, the Government should surely be doing everything in their power to facilitate that trade, and should not be waiting for that trade to arrive before putting facilities in place.
Lord Mulley: I was extremely disappointed with the Minister's reply, because, although the form of the amendment is not exactly one that would have come from the parliamentary draftsman, the point is surely one which he would have accepted in principle; namely, that the Secretary of State should take the lead in examining the possibility of these additional facilities.
As has been said so powerfully, if you wait until someone comes along with a piece of paper and says "I can guarantee 30,000 every year" you will never do anything, just as British Rail will not provide for the carrying of cycles, because the cycling organisation seemingly, as we understood earlier today, cannot come along with a list of people who guarantee that they will make a profit in six or seven years from now through carrying bicycles. It is a negative attitude. We are not asking for anything to be done except that the matter be looked at.
The Government are rightly concentrating their efforts on further employment, and looking to try to help the inner cities. While I would not claim that having a customs depot will necessarily transform the problems in some of these areas, I am quite certain that there are a number of small businesses in this country, and indeed medium-sized businesses, which have an export potential, but which have been deterred from exporting because of the difficulties about customs, the uncertainty, the forms and all the rest of it.
If they had somewhere fairly near to which they could go and get assistance and advice, it would make an immense difference to their attitude towards exports. Certainly I should have thought that the Secretary of State could well set up an inter-governmental committee or something of that sort to look at the possibility of utilising the extra train facilities and the extra speed that will be available on the lines that my noble friend indicated.
Lord Underhill: Everyone seems to agree on the importance of this matter. The House of Commons Transport Committee on the Channel Tunnel expressed its great concern that unless something like this is done we shall lose out on a lot of trade, particularly to Northern France. We have your

557
Lordships' own Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill, which received a considerable amount of evidence and expressed its view in support of the principle of this amendment. I know that Eurotunnel and BR held a number of regional conferences of manufacturers. I should very much like to know what was the general view at those regional conferences, because I should be very surprised if views were not expressed on the lines of this amendment: that some consideration should be given to customs clearance facilities.
When the Minister mentioned the BR plan under Clause 39 I was prepared to bet a large amount of money that my noble friend Lord Sefton would be jumping in, and he did. On this occasion he supports the principle, believing that the institution of an inquiry in order to have another look at the possibility of inland customs clearance facilities would help the area about which he has been talking day after day in relation to the Channel Tunnel.
The Minister says that it is not for the Secretary of State to take a lead in planning these matters. All we are asking is that the Secretary of State should take the lead again in calling for consultations. I should like to know whether part of the resistance to it is from Customs and Excise, because there is a strong suspicion that that is the situation.
Lord Tordoff: Would the noble Lord care to ask the Minister what view the Department of Trade and Industry takes? I should have thought that the department was extremely favourable towards this.
Lord Underhill: That is a question which I repeat to the Minister, if he would care to answer it and give also the view of Customs and Excise. It might be a question that he would like to keep in mind for the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, when discussing the development of further jobs.
At 20 past nine it would be foolish to divide the Committee, but this is a very important matter. If the Minister could reply to these two brief points—what is the attitude of the Department of Trade and Industry and is there a view from Customs and Excise?—I shall willingly withdraw the amendment
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord will be well aware that the Government speak as one and therefore the Department of Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury, which is concerned with Customs and Excise, all speak with one voice.
I give one assurance to the Committee. In assessing whether an ICD is necessary Customs and Excise is well aware and willing to take account of the fact that a new ICD will up to a point generate its own demand. Such an assessment must of course be realistic and I have to tell the Committee that Customs and Excise has a considerable amount of experience in operating ICDs which have failed to
558
stimulate the demand that would have justified them. It is something that will be looked at very closely.
I apologise for dampening the enthusiasm of Members of the Committee that ICDs automatically generate a tremendous demand for small businesses or for large. It has not always been the case.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord is talking about past experience but we are arguing about the new experience of freight trains going through the tunnel into Europe, which is a new situation. We are talking about that and taking advantage of it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I accept that of course, but that is something for the future. That is why I say that Customs and Excise will want to look at that point.
Lord Underhill: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 39 [Railways Board's plan for international through services]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 28, line 47, leave out ("proposals as to").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 86 at the same time I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 90 because they all hang together. In doing so I speak on behalf of the Yorkshire and Humberside Association; that is, all the district councils in Yorkshire and Humberside whatever their political complexion. The amendments are also supported by the regional CBI and the regional TUC. In presenting a petition to the select Committee the Yorkshire and Humberside Association was concerned that the benefits of the Channel Tunnel should not be confined to the South-East but should extend to the North—in particular to Yorkshire and Humberside where there is industrial and commercial potential for growth.
It was enouraging that the strength of the case was recognised by the Select Committee through the inclusion of new Clause 39. It was also encouraging last Thursday to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, say in the debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that in the light of opinion throughout the Committee he would be prepared to look again at the situation of trains going north of London having on-train control.
It is less encouraging to hear his response tonight to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Underhill dealing with ICDs. My amendments follow from what my noble friend was saying. A comprehensive rail infrastructure with facilities for passenger and freight services is important to the North to ensure that the full benefits of the Channel Tunnel are felt there.
My amendments to Clause 39 are intended to ensure that the plan envisaged under that clause is sufficiently comprehensive to enable the regions to take full advantage of the opportunities available. My amendments provide the opportunity for comment to be made on the proposed plans without causing unnecessary delay. They make provision for the plans to be publicised through channels which will be known in advance. They also provide for the Secretaries of State who are likely to be involved in the development to be fully aware not only of the plans but of the comments on the plans.
Under Clause 39 as it stands the plan which British Rail is instructed to prepare is constrained by the financial resources likely to be available to it. The clause provides for:
"measures which the Board consider ought to be taken by any person in the United Kingdom or France",
which indicates that others as well as British Rail are likely to be involved in the plans which British Rail is to draw up. It is important therefore that the plan is not restricted by British Rail's financial constraints. For example, other sources of funding might be available such as the European Regional Development Fund. It might be possible, indeed it should be possible, to involve private business as well as local government in the plans. A whole range of people and organisations are likely to be involved.
In Yorkshire we should like to see the plan cover options for the provision of fast, direct routes for passengers and freight from the regions to the tunnel. From Yorkshire and Humberside the most direct route would be an improved Snow Hill tunnel. I know that some Members of the Committee are likely to recoil at the possible cost involved in that. The £80 million that the improvements to Snow Hill would cost are small compared with the total cost of the Channel Tunnel and compared with the benefits that are likely to result.
It is also important that we argue, for example, that the benefits of the Snow Hill tunnel will accrue to areas in the North which are already assisted areas under assisted area status. It will also be part of the European transport network. That has already been recognised by the loan from the European Investment Bank to Eurotunnel as part of its pre-funding of the tunnel. There are precedents for such action; for example, the Leeds-Bradford Airport and the Manchester Airport. We should like to see all the options presented in the report and fully examined.
The development of new passenger and freight services from the regions offers the biggest stimulus to the rail network that this country has had in this century. It offers, for example, the prospect of through-sleeper services to Paris and Brussels and for the development of many new types of rail freight services. These benefits should not be concentrated in the South-East only; they should extend to the North.
The question of on-trains Customs and immigration clearance was discussed last week. We hope for encouraging information at the Report stage. Inland Customs services, as my noble friend
560
Lord Underhill indicated, are very important. At the moment British Rail's commitment is to the South only. On the other hand, if we look to the Continent we see that Customs clearance is carried out much nearer to the point of production. We see other developments. The Nord-Pas de Calais region, for example, has received considerable investment with new railway links to maximise the benefits of the tunnel. Nord-Pas de Calais has similar problems to the rundown, traditional industries of northern England. It also receives assistance from the European Community. If the North is to compete with regions such as this, it must also have good links to the tunnel. There are other factors which the plan will need to cover. I shall not go into them in detail but it is clear that it needs to be a fully comprehensive plan.
The amendments that I am proposing tonight are very modest, seeking to extend the scope which Clause 39 already introduces for ensuring that the Channel Tunnel is a national link and not just a South-East link. Recent press advertisements, referred to in an earlier debate, from both British Rail and Eurotunnel strike the right psychological note about the comprehensive nature of Channel Tunnel services and the integration of these services into the British Rail system. But much has to be done before the content of those advertisements becomes a reality. My amendments go some way towards helping this objective. I hope that they will meet with your Lordships' support.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I compliment the noble Baroness for having moved this amendment. Once again it gives us the opportunity to discuss the fact that this Bill and the proposed tunnel will bring benefits throughout the country and not just in the South-East. That is the message that, certainly, the Government have been trying to get across for a very long time.
On a lighter note, I am somewhat surprised to hear, looking at the amendment, that publication in the London Gazette is thought to offer a guarantee of wide public dissemination. I am not certain that I have ever met anyone who has ever read it. I was certainly not aware of that fact.
More seriously, if there is any anxiety that the board might publish a plan in a hole-in-a-corner manner so that no one knew about it I think that that anxiety can be dismissed. I cannot imagine the British Rail Board wanting to do so since it has every interest in letting potential customers know what services are in prospect. I have no doubt that the board will publish the plan widely and that it will be happy to receive any pertinent comments. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate to place the board under an express duty to invite comments. A statutory requirement of that kind is usually related to situations involving formal objections and public inquiries.
I cannot believe that anyone will be inhibited from letting the board have comments on the plan simply

561
because there is no explicit invitation to do so. The proposed amendment would make it more difficult for people to comment because of the three-month time limit it would impose on representations. That is a point which should be borne in mind. I do not think that it is necessary to write into the Bill a requirement that the board should forward the comments and the plan to particular Ministers. The relevant Government departments will receive copies of the plan in the ordinary course of their day-to-day contacts with the board. There can be little doubt that the board will also tell the departments about any representations concerning the plan which are relevant to them. The board should not, however, be obliged to forward actual copies of each and every representation. They could be very numerous and the Government departments mentioned will not necessarily have any responsibility for adjudicating upon them.
The noble Baroness pointed out that new Clause 39 was brought forward by the Government in fulfilment of an undertaking given in another place by my honorable friend the Minister of State at the Report stage. It was originally proposed by members of the party of the noble Baroness. This approach is very much modelled on the original Opposition proposal. We believe that it is the right one.
Clause 39 is a valuable addition to the Bill which will help both British Rail and other interested parties to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel are dispersed as widely as possible. The noble Baroness asked particularly about the European Regional Development Fund. It is for local authorities and other bodies in assisted areas to put forward candidate projects initially to the Government for ERDF support. There is no reason why they should not do so in this case. If such projects were put forward to the Government, the Government would consider them with others when deciding what to submit to Brussels. As for the possibility that British Rail should have a limitation on funds, Clause 39(4) requires BR to take into account only the limitations upon its own sources of finance in putting forward proposals for action by other persons including the Secretary of State or Commissioners of Customs and Excise. British Rail cannot be required to take account of limitations on those persons' finances because they lie outside British Rail's knowledge. Equally it cannot sensibly consider alternative or additional sources of funds available to those bodies.
I hope the noble Baroness will appreciate that I very much share her concern that the benefits should be spread right round the country, and I hope that what I have been able to say will give her some reassurance. I do not think that the amendment as drafted will help much and I hope that she will be prepared to withdraw it.
Viscount Sidmouth: While having sympathy with the amendment, I do not believe that it is realistic to press it too hard at present because of the hard fact that, as the Minister has said, in commercial terms British Rail has to justify any expenditure on this
562
project. It is a fact that what it proposes at the moment—that is, to make maximum use of the three existing routes between London and Folkestone with a terminal at Waterloo and the ancillary services—will just about do the job on the traffic forecast. However, if I may make a prophecy, I believe that if not before the tunnel is opened then very soon afterwards, rather than tinkering with the existing routes with all their restrictions of loading gauge and so on, the case will become overwhelming for what the Italians call a diretissima between London and Folkestone. If that is so, the bringing up of the Snow Hill trans-London link will make maximum use of that direct line. As the Minister is well aware, it has far better potential connections with both the east coast and west coast main lines, and those advantages, in addition to the future existence of a direct line, will make the case for the whole thing very strong in the light of the traffic which I hope and believe will develop.
Lord Underhill: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may say in passing that I thought she put up an excellent case in justification of the four amendments. Nothing the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, has said in any way opposes the principle of the amendments. He is discussing what might be certain points in the British Rail plan. Nothing the Minister said appeared to render the amendments valueless. People want to know where they will see the plan. Whatever may be the Minister's views about the provincials and the London Gazette, once authorities and organisations know that it will be in the London Gazette if they do not already take it—and many of them do—they will know that that is the place to look.
There is nothing in the amendments to which the Minister should take exception. We know that the Government work together. Paragraph (e) of Amendment No. 89 relating to the plan being sent to the various Ministers is surely nothing that he would oppose. The Ministers will consider the plan and they will consider the representations. People want to know whether they will have the right to submit representations which will be considered. That is all that this series of four amendments is asking for.
Baroness Lockwood: I must thank the Minister for his response, and in particular for sharing my concern about the need to extend the benefits of the Channel Tunnel throughout the country. Having said that, however, I am disappointed at his response to my amendments.
If I may put his mind at rest in relation to the London Gazette, it is not that it is a firm favourite in the North but it is a recognised medium for public announcements. If there is such a framework as my amendments aim to establish, then local authorities and all bodies that are interested in British Rail's plan will know where to look for the proposals and the time limits in which they can respond. They will be preparing for them. Therefore I am disappointed that he does not see the advantage of including them in the clause.

563
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, feels that it is not realistic to press the amendments at the present time. If we are planning in advance and looking ahead, then this is exactly the time to press such amendments and not wait until events overtake us. However, I shall not press the amendments tonight. I shall look carefully at what has been said in this and previous debates and then determine whether or not to bring the amendments back at a later stage in the Bill's transit through this Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 29, line 17, leave out ("31st December 1989") and insert ("1st August 1988").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make the Railways Board prepare a plan under Clause 39 (3) by 1st August 1988 instead of, as the Bill as it stands has it, by 31st December 1989. It is all tied up with the whole question of the clearance depots, which we consider of great importance. In an earlier debate last week many noble Lords suggested that it was only for this reason that the idea of the tunnel was given much credence outside the South-East of England. I find it difficult to believe that the railways are not already working out plans for the Continental through services. They must have some ideas. To wait until 31st December 1989, two and a half years from now, seems ridiculous. Therefore, we ask that this be brought forward and be done in considerably less time.
That would give the railways a chance, and the customers a chance, to make a decision. Once they know the sort of pattern British Rail are talking about and the volume they are trying to cater for, they will be able to think in terms of the estabishment of a network of inland clearance facilities linked to the board's determination of the sites for certain goods depots.
A lot of this must have already been done by British Rail and we should like to speed it up. To move from two and a half years' leeway for British Rail to make their plans and to bring it down to just over a year is perhaps asking a little too much, but I hope that the Minister will see this as part of the feeling of goodwill that the tunnel still has in parts of the country. If he could concede this it would be quite a boost to the whole idea of the tunnel outside the South-East of England. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This is a fairly straight-forward issue. It is a question of the sensible deadline for the preparation of the plan called for by this clause. The feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, expressed is that 31st December 1989 would be insufficient time to implement the plan before the tunnel opens in May 1993. The noble Lord mentioned again the inland customs depots as a factor.
564
Obviously the appropriate deadline is a matter of judgment. In fact, there will not be a clear separation between planning and implementation. The two processes will overlap. British Rail has already done a great deal of preliminary planning on tunnel services, and its plans will evolve continuously right up to and beyond the opening of the tunnel. Each part of the plan will be implemented as soon as it is practicable to do so, and there therefore will be a whole series of start dates for the various elements.
The question is, when will the plan have achieved a sufficient degree of comprehensiveness for it to be sensible to publish it. We consulted British Rail before settling on 31st December 1989, though some argued that that might even be rather early bearing in mind that it will still be three and a half years before the tunnel opens. The counter to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is that the sooner British Rail is required to publish its plan the more provisional its nature is likely to be.
We consider it sensible to give British Rail a reasonable period of time to research market data and work out a plan based on it, while still leaving time for consultations to be undertaken once the report is published. It seems to us, and indeed to British Rail, that the date in the Bill strikes a reasonable balance. I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord that that is the case.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I was a member of the British Rail Board for nearly 11 years, and if there was one thing we were good at it was producing plans. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, will recall the booklets for plans that we were able to produce in British Rail on its future development, corporate plans, freight plans, and so on.
I hoped in the light of representations made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the Minister would have agreed to go back to British Rail and say "All right, we have had this expression of view. Do you feel that you could expedite this?". The amount of work that has been done on the Channel Tunnel within the British Rail Board is enormous. I suspect that to delay this for two and a half years is rather overdoing it. While not pressing the amendment, I urge the Minister to make representations to the British Railways Board in the light of what has been said in the Committee tonight.
Lord Mountevans: I wonder whether the Minister before he replies could confirm that British Rail does a great deal of planning. In recent years it has become apparent that when British Rail puts a plan to the Secretary of State and the Government approve it, it tends to get on with it quicker than the plan allows. I am thinking of the East Coast electrification, of the electrification to Peterborough and of the Hastings line electrification. All those projects came in ahead of schedule in terms of the time originally allowed in the plan. Would it therefore not be prudent to let British Rail present its plan at the latest possible moment in the hope that in the light of its recent

565
performance it will be able not only to deliver it on time but to fine tune and refine it? The Minister laid stress on that in his earlier remarks.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to ask the Minister for clarification. Although 31st December 1989 is the point at which the plan under this section must be produced, does it all have to be done at once? Am I correct in my impression that the plans will be evolved gradually, although the date for the final of the first stage before the continual review is 31st December? It would have some effect if we could hope that there would be interim plans before the final plan is passed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said, British Rail has lots of experience in these matters and it must have a number of plans already being evaluated. If at this point the Minister could give that kind of assurance, I should be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think that the best thing I can do is to draw to the attention of British Rail the remarks made in Committee this evening. I certainly undertake to do that.
As regards reviewing the plan, paragraph (b) of Clause 39(3) states that British Rail:
"shall keep the plan under review and from time to time revise it".
I was referring to that paragraph when I said that it will keep the whole matter under review. However, I shall draw the remarks to the attention of British Rail. I have no doubt that representatives will read what has taken place without the need for me to draw attention to it. I shall certainly do so in any event.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Atnendments Nos. 88 to 91 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Dispersal of international passenger trains
.(1) Before commencing the construction of Work No. 21 in Part III of Schedule 1, the Railways Board shall assess or cause to be assessed in consultation with the London Planning Advisory Committee and such London Boroughs or the City Corporation as may be affected, the desirability of dispersing international passenger trains starting in or ending in London to two or more terminals in the Greater London area, including dispersal along a single cross-London line such as the Snow Hill route previously advocated by the London Borough of Lambeth.
(2)The Railways Board shall review or cause to be reviewed in consultation as specified in sub-section (1) above the assessment specified in sub-section (1) above, at intervals of 1 and 5 years after the commencement of international passenger services at Waterloo, and at 5-yearly intervals thereafter.
(3)The Railways Board shall present the findings of such assessments to the Secretary of State, and shall make them available to the public at a reasonable cost thereof.
(4)Such an assessment shall take into account railway operational matters, traffic generation, pollution, environmental effects, effects on local communities, benefits to international and domestic public transport passengers, the integration of transport facilities, and the provisions of development plans prepared under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or the local Government Act 1985.
(5)If it appears desirable to the Secretary of State, the Railways Board shall be required to prepare a plan under this section to disperse international passenger services in London.")
The noble Lord said: This new clause is an attempt to persuade the Government to keep an open mind on the question of whether only one terminal is possible for London. A part of me believes that ultimately this is possibly the right answer and there will he only one terminal. However, there have been rumblings from a number of groups.
I know that many Members of the Committee have been given copies of a document from the Association of Waterloo Groups. There is something rather sad about the fact that here is a small group of people whose community will be torn to pieces by the new development. They have the feeling that they have not been thoroughly consulted. There is no way in which the area around Waterloo will be the same after the next five years or so. There is therefore a worry, and the amendment attempts to point out some of the difficulties which we envisage. We hope that the Government will keep clear and open minds about the possibility of another London terminal.
I have read the report and the Government's reply to it. I am always worried when we suddenly have figures of 11 million passengers coming from an area like Waterloo or anywhere else. When we see figures such as those I sometimes wonder how they are arrived at. There are many examples even of the Department of Transport, with its expertise, occasionally getting things quite seriously wrong. I do not blame it for that because it is not easy to get the figures right.
However, this area will suddenly have an enormous number of people coming into it. There will be problems of parking. Should the Government not decide that ordinary parking cannot be handled in an area such as that and say that there will be a centre for dispersal, with people arriving and then being moved out by Underground or some other
568
form of public transport? I think that the idea of putting a huge number of vehicles in that area was again discussed in Committee last week. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who works near Waterloo, said that there is not a great deal of room on the roads for additional traffic at most times of the day. It will be particularly difficult when this enormous number of vehicles comes in. I hope that the Government will consider saying that the area cannot handle it all and will make a central dispersal point.
The amendment asks that serious thought should be given to the dispersal of international passenger trains through London. However, failing that, we ask that the railways board shall review the situation or cause it to be reviewed in consultation as specified every five years after the commencement of international passenger services at Waterloo and every five years thereafter. In other words, this is an attempt to ensure that there is some compulsion; that the board does not drift towards a crisis but will look at the situation every five years under statute. It will need to be aware of exactly what is happening so that we shall not suddenly be hit with something that cannot be handled.
I can see difficulties in dispersing passengers around London, although I am sure it can be done. However, I think that there are a number of things the Government can do—first, look again at the question of dispersal and, secondly, as the traffic builds up, as we hope that it will, assess every five years the question of whether dispersal is possible. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: We trailed this amendment profusely when we were discussing Amendment No. 21A last Thursday night. It was also discussed to a certain extent just now in connection with the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. It seems to me that what it is really about—and I should like to ignore emotional expressions from the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, such as the community being torn to pieces by this new development —is whether the choice of Waterloo was right and whether we should stand by it.
So far as I understand it, the Select Committee found nothing wrong in the choice of Waterloo. Among other things, in this amendment we are being asked to consider whether in the mid-1990s, when the Channel Tunnel will be hopefully alive and operating, Waterloo will be able to cope with some 159,000 passengers per day, as opposed to its average of perhaps 135,000 passengers per day now. I should like to suggest to the Committee with perhaps a bit of help from that excellent journal Modern Railways, and in particular the April 1962 number, which devoted no fewer than six pages to an August Bank Holiday Saturday at Waterloo, that Waterloo can certainly cope with these figures and that then, as now, the infrastructure around Waterloo can cope as well.
If Members of the Committee cast their minds back to the very early 1960s, they will remember that

569
not very many of us had access to cars. Most of us went on holiday in Britain, since the overseas package holiday had not really been invented; and most of us went by rail. Do not let us forget that in those days a lot of us worked a five-and-a-half or six-day week, which meant that we worked on a Saturday. In August 1961 one finds that Waterloo was capable of dealing with perhaps 175,000 passengers on a Saturday, purely on the commuting side of the business. Commuters can drift through Waterloo blindfold. They are creatures of habit; they know where they are going and they know whence they come. More interesting is the fact that Waterloo could deal with 49,000 holidaymaker-passengers on a peak Saturday like that. It dealt not only with its commuter traffic, which I have already discussed, but with the holiday traffic—to Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall. It dealt with regular Channel Islands traffic, with three boat trains in and out each day. It dealt with liner and cruise ship traffic, which could amount to 11 or 12 trains on a Saturday. It dealt with race traffic. There was Ascot, Hurst Park (still in those days), and Sandown Park. The extra traffic emanating particularly from the holidaymakers and racegoers was calculated at 49,000 on a busy Saturday. Waterloo coped even if passengers did queue down the taxi road to Waterloo Bridge Road, which I can certainly remember doing, as, I suspect, can one or two other Members of this Chamber. The station coped and so did the infrastructure. There is no record of Lambethans complaining bitterly then about peak Saturdays at Waterloo. Indeed one hears very little about Lambethans complaining now.
The Committee will remember an exhibition at Waterloo promoted by British Rail when it sought to put its case and invited people to comment. To help promote the exhibition it ran a mail drop to some 85,000 householders in Lambeth and Southwark. It seems significant that of those who signed the visitors' book at the exhibition only 158 were residents of the areas covered by those two councils. That fact does not square with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about a community being torn to pieces by this new development. If the community felt that way, why did people not go to the exhibition? There was a questionnaire: why did they not answer it? Was theirs the negative attitude that if we put our heads in the sand it will go away?
I believe that Waterloo is the right choice and that the Select Committee was right, if I quote it correctly, in saying that there was nothing wrong with that choice. I do not believe that the Snow Hill tunnel offers a viable alternative. I use the word "viable" because it seems to me that to reconstruct the Snow Hill tunnel to take Channel Tunnel trains as I envisage them, or as they are at present envisaged by British Rail, would cost vastly more than any other works that we are currently proposing in terms of developing the railways to cope with the Channel Tunnel.
The amendment also suggests that there should be one-year and five-year reviews. I do not feel that we need to legislate for such reviews because no doubt there will be one-year and five-year reviews anyhow
570
and if major changes need to be made, British Rail will seek to make them. It will not simply put those reviews under the concrete and hope that they will be hidden.
As for Work No. 21, so far as I understand it, that is almost entirely upon railway land as already designated and operated by British Rail. I find that also difficult to square with the remark about a community being torn apart. It seems to me that if a tunnel is built under the existing platforms of Waterloo that is hardly tearing apart a community.
Subsection (4) of the amendment appears to seek to legislate for the Labour Party's manifesto plank on the Channel Tunnel which argues that there should be a wide-ranging public inquiry. To a certain extent so does subsection (1). The Labour Party did not win the general election although it fought on that plank, among others. It seems to me that if one has lost the election on a manifesto which includes such a plank, one should not seek to legislate it into a Bill of this kind.
Lastly, I should like to take up the remark about parking made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. It is my understanding that British Rail is keen to negotiate with Lambeth council on the provision of parking, not least within the site of Waterloo station as already defined. The unwillingness of Lambeth council to treat on the subject seems to me to be wrong-headed and I do not feel that we should give it additional bites of the cherry by introducing or accepting this amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: If I heard the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, right—and I apologise if I heard him wrongly—I have the feeling that he said that the people around Waterloo were not consulted. That is not the point at all, they were consulted but they broke off the negotiations. On page 15 in paragraph 104 of the report, the Committee recommend that Lambeth Borough Council should forthwith reopen discussions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think that the issue of Waterloo has been discussed at great length both in this House and in another place. An enormous amount of work was done by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on whether Waterloo should be the London terminal for the rail link. In the Government's view the Committee were right to rule out any fresh assessment of the principle that the terminal should be at Waterloo. There will, of course, be many opportunities to discuss and refine the details, but the basic choice of location must, I think, now be accepted. British Rail have already a great deal to do if they are to complete all their works in time for the opening of the tunnel. If they now had to divert their energies into conducting another round of studies and consultations on the case for Waterloo, there would be a serious risk of the whole programme of works being delayed, with damaging repercussions on the viability of British Rail's investment and an obvious risk that British Rail would not be able to begin services when the tunnel opened. If British Rail did find themselves with that problem it would no doubt also affect through services to parts of the country other than London. Furthermore, assuming

571
the choice of Waterloo were confirmed yet again, which I have no doubt it would be, there would then be even less time for British Rail to discuss and develop solutions to meet any detailed points of concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, said that the local area had been torn to pieces by this proposal—
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Would be.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Would be or will be torn to pieces by this proposal. I cannot see that. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, gave an indication of the actual increase in traffic which will take place. Waterloo is already an extremely busy station and goodness knows how many commuters go in there every day. I also recall that it was not so many years ago that Lambeth actually wanted Waterloo to be the London terminal of the Channel Tunnel link. They seem totally to have ignored the fact that over 500 jobs will be created by this. So I very much hope that Lambeth Borough Council and the various community groups who have opposed Waterloo will now accept the Select Committee's judgment and that they will join with British Rail in discussing how the adverse effects of the development may be minimised and its positive benefits for the neighbourhood maximised. I hope that the negative and head-in-the-sand attitudes will finally be removed.
I have more sympathy for the suggestion that further reviews should be carried out after international services to Waterloo have begun. It is self-evident that if the traffic to the Continent grows from year to year after the tunnel has opened there must eventually come a time when the capacity of Waterloo is exceeded. But that time is unlikely to be soon. British Rail consider on the basis of their traffic forecasts that Waterloo will have sufficient capacity until at least the year 2003. But forecasting is an imperfect art, as we have been reminded on various occasions, not least on the M.25, particularly in totally new circumstances such as those which would be created by the opening of the tunnel. It is only when the tunnel is opened that actual traffic growth can be observed and this will give British Rail a clearer idea of what additional facilities are likely to be needed and in what time-scale. It is not sensible to impose on British Rail the sort of rigid time-scale for review which this new clause envisages.
I would also remind the Committee that if British Rail do identify a need for additional facilities at some time in the future, they will have to follow the normal procedures involving either a Private Bill or a planning application before the development can go ahead. In the unlikely event that British Rail had not consulted interested parties on their proposals, objectors would have had every opportunity to put their views across under either of these procedures.
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I cannot recommend this new clause as being either desirable or necessary. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the new clause and that we may also be
572
able to put the Waterloo issue to bed once and for all tonight.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I am disappointed. I thought that for once the Minister was going to take into consideration the real issue contained in the amendment. Up to now all we have heard from the opponents of the amendment is the British Rail case. It could have been the manager of British Rail speaking here. Is there nothing else involved but British Rail or does the City of London and the Greater London authority exist for the existence of British Rail? I thought that British Rail was a service industry that was intended to service an area in a correct way and that that area should be the United Kingdom.
The amendment calls for the first examination of an alternative to bringing the international trains right into the centre of London. That is the issue and it is just as alive now as when Colin Buchanan on behalf of the Government of this land produced a book called Traffic in Towns. It would be just as well if some of the people who produced these specious arguments, which are all based on British Rail's expertise and experience, looked back at some fundamental planning principles. One of those is that one cannot plan a good life for a city if one slavishly follows the idea of the traffic operators that they will go into the centre of the town without any restrictions.
The real reason that British Rail wants to go to Waterloo is because it knows damn well that that is the cheapest way to compete with the airlines. Of course it is. We can now be offered transport from Paris right to the centre of London. British Rail tried to defeat the air ferry from Liverpool to London with the same argument. I have no quarrel with that in the commercial world, but we are not talking just about the commercial world. We shall be shortly when the Government go ahead in a headlong fashion and privatise British Rail. I am concerned about the interests of all the citizens of this land and that means that we should have proper planning.
When this matter was referred to yesterday someone accused me of not knowing London as well as I know Liverpool. I shall wear that badge with pleasure but I know a little about London. I was told that there was no tube station at Clapham Junction, but I never said that there was a tube station there. Yesterday I referred to Clapham. The language I used was "the other side of Clapham".I said that I could get into the centre of London inside 10 minutes. I can do so from Wandsworth Common. I was merely using that example to illustrate that within 10 minutes' travelling time one begins to reach an area where it is possible to plan terminals with onward distribution. After all, British Rail has just told us that next year it intends to introduce a through service to Clapham Junction from the North, so that must be the right area to start examining.
I think that is was the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who told me that I did not know what I was talking about, and he suggested that British Rail had investigated all the alternatives. I said that British Rail did not investigate all the practical alternatives;

573
British Rail investigated only those alternatives and those criteria that British Rail itself laid down.
The amendment calls for a much wider survey. The Minister has once again advanced the argument that we heard over Canary Wharf and now there are some doubts about Canary Wharf. As I said in my closing speech on Canary Wharf, things were being done in a hurry and we had to give the position; otherwise, we were told, those great American and Swiss benefactors would move out of the country, taking the money with them, and we should not get Canary Wharf. Well, it looks as though we have the Bill and we may not get Canary Wharf. We were also told about the haste and the hurry in the private enterprise sector when it wanted to buy another newspaper.
Now we are told that there is a hurry about this and that British Rail does not have the time to investigate. If British Rail knows that and has convinced the Minister of it, then the Minister will know the timescale involved, first, for when the operation would have to start to make Waterloo a possible success; secondly, when British Rail intends to start it; and, thirdly, when it intends to complete the project. He should know that. If British Rail told him there was a hurry, it should have told him those three things. I do not think that it has. 1 think it has put down a bald statement. I think it is a specious excuse on the part of British Rail.
Let me close on this note. I may not know London as well as I know Liverpool. However, I know Liverpool. I know that at the moment it has a very good commuter service between the city and the outlying suburbs. I also know that if it had been up to British Rail that commuter service would not have been possible. It wanted to rip up two of the railway lines that were key elements. I think that the amendment should stand.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I wonder whether the Minister can comment on the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, when he said that the reason Waterloo was chosen was that it was commercially more attractive. If that is so, I regard it as a very important argument. We must keep in mind that the whole project is being financed by private capital and therefore must be attractive and viable. There is no claim on the state for financing this project. Was that a serious consideration in the decision to concentrate on Waterloo?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, indeed it was. It was largely a commercial decision on the part of British Rail. If British Rail intends to be in business it must attract passengers to travel between Paris and London and Brussels and London on its railway. British Rail looked at something like 13 different alternatives in the London area and it came down, after a great deal of investigation and looking at many alternatives, to Waterloo.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, will be able to look at all the arguments if he reads the report of the Select Committee. It dealt with the matter at length. It has been gone over many times. Of course it was a
574
commercial judgment. It was made for the benefit of the potential passengers on British Rail who might conceivably want to go to Paris from the middle of London but who will probably not be persuaded to go out somewhere south of Clapham Junction, as the noble Lord is suggesting.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I am not suggesting that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Very well. The noble Lord is not suggesting that.
Lord Sefton of Garston: There are alternatives. You can bring the train from Paris right into the centre of London. Nobody wants to go to Waterloo and stay there. Who would want to stop at Waterloo for any length of time? If you get to Waterloo, you are going to go somewhere else. Let me put this to the Committee. It may be that somebody will want to come from Paris, call into London and then go to Heathrow. Perhaps that person will want to go to Gatwick. What will he do? Will he go into Waterloo and then go to Gatwick? British Rail has been boasting about its service to Gatwick. It is much easier to move from the Clapham Junction area to Gatwick than to go from Waterloo. If you want to go to the West Country, it could be much easier to move there from the Clapham area than it is from Waterloo.
I am not suggesting that people should be stopped at Clapham. I am suggesting that the Minister opens his mind to embrace this idea that there is another possibility, provided it is properly discussed and provided we hear experts, other than those from British Rail. Just as aircraft come into Heathrow, because it is evident that they cannot be brought into the centre of London, the facilities are then improved elsewhere. Elsewhere does not just mean the 13 alternatives that British Rail put forward.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should like to know who the other experts are who suggested somewhere else. British Rail has been into this extremely carefully and the Select Committee looked at its evidence with great care and at great length. Waterloo appears to me to be the answer but I am not an expert on this; I take the word of those who are and who have looked into it extremely carefully.
I do not understand why anyone should conceivably want to go from Paris to Gatwick by train. If you wanted to go from Paris to Gatwick you would go by aeroplane. I would also point out that Ashford is also on the route down. There will be a terminal there which will capture a good deal of South-East out of town traffic. British Rail is anticipating 1 million or more passengers a year who will use that terminal.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister suggested that this would be the finish of the argument about Waterloo. I suspect that it will not be and that in a few years' time there may be a revision from British Rail. It has happened before when it has come to different conclusions.
On the question of the association of Waterloo groups, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord

575
Mountevans, that I do not think this is a suddenly trumped-up group. The Minister may know more than I do, and the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, may know more than I do, but it seems to be a very representative collection of interested people in the Waterloo area. I still maintain that you will not be able to have a terminal of this sort there, dealing with the traffic that we are talking about, without an irreversible change. For instance, one of the suggestions that this group made is that house prices will undoubtedly go up. There will be a big change in property values and the local residents will not be able to compete.
However, I can see that there is no possibility at this stage of getting further, and I suppose I should be grateful for the fact that the Minister saw some merit in the question of a periodical revision, although he was not willing to give us on the face of the Bill any specific time. But he said that British Rail would periodically assess the value of Waterloo and whether it needed another terminal somewhere else. I shall read the Minister's words with great care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [No government grants to Railways Board in respect of international railway services]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tordoff: I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question, That Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill. I shall not detain the Committee more than a couple of minutes and in the end it is not my intention firmly to oppose the clause.
I wanted to take the opportunity of briefly raising the question of no obligation with respect to international railway services being imposed on the railways board under Section 3 of the Railways Act 1974, which is what the clause states. It is all part—is it not?—of the Government's intention not to subsidise this whole system. I was interested when we were discussing Amendment No. 81 to hear that the transport supplementary grant for Kent would have special treatment for the schemes that are being put up by the Kentish men or the men of Kent who were speaking from the Government Back-Benches. That is all right. That is the road lobby. When it comes to the rail lobby, that is a different matter.
If this whole system is going to work properly—and we come back over and over again to what happens in the remoter parts of the country—and if through-rail trains are to work, there have to be provisions at the far end not only for Customs but for container ports and freight handling. At the moment, British Rail has been dismantling a number of these freight terminals because they are not viable. Again, if the whole thing is driven only by market forces, I believe that those services will not be as productive and successful as they might be.
The Government ought to be putting money into the infrastructure at the terminals in the distance—in
576
Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, and so on. I believe that the opportunity for the Channel Tunnel to entice freight into our ports as well as on to our railways is important. I have said before that the ability to take ships into Liverpool or into the other west coast ports, to load their goods on to a train and to get them into central Europe quicker than the boats can get to Rotterdam, is an important factor for the rail tunnel. That is one of the reasons why I support it. Without the infrastructure at the ports and without the freight handling terminals within our industrial areas, that will be delayed. The Government ought not to be taking powers under Clause 41 to deny any obligation to give the appropriate grants to the Railways Board to fund such projects. Having said that, I do not intend to oppose the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I will briefly reply to that because it makes a change to have to defend a situation where the Government have declined to give support to the railway or, indeed, the tunnel system as a whole. It has been made very clear to us in the past in this Chamber that this system has to operate competitively, in free and fair competition with the ferry system, and that is why we have introduced Clause 2 and also Clause 41. It was to meet the concern of the ferry operators that government funds might leak to the concessionaires in breach of the treaty through the medium of government support for British Rail's tunnel services.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord said and with much of it I am in agreement—namely, the way in which the benefits of the tunnel should spread throughout the country. It is an important principle of the Bill that this system should be in the private sector and not subsidised by taxpayers' money. That is why Clause 41 is in the Bill. I think if we attempted to remove it at this stage the wrath of the ferry operators, among others, would be something that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, might not wish to face.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 93:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
("Transparency of arrangement with and investment by British Railways Board.
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that—

(a)any arrangement between the Concessionaires and the Railways Board; and

(b)any proposed investment by that Board;

relating directly or indirectly to the tunnel system shall be made public.
(2)If in the opinion of the Secretary of State any arrangement or proposed investment should not be made public because of commercial confidentiality he shall ensure that the arrangement or proposed investment concerned is examined by such independent person as he considers appropriate.
(3)The independent person referred to in subsection (2) above shall he required to certify whether in his opinion—

(a)the arrangement has been made on arm's length commercial terms; or

(b)the proposed investment complies with commercial investment criteria.")

The noble Lord said: I am very glad the Minister finished his last remark by saying that this was a private sector matter and that no government money would be involved. It is clear from the amendment which I am now proposing to move, which is a new clause, that the purpose is to ensure that there are safeguards so that not only will the Government not be giving money towards the construction and the running of the Channel Tunnel but there should be no government support through the British Railways Board for the concessionaires of the tunnel. If any money is given, the arrangement should be as transparent as is possible with investment by the British Railways Board. In other words, we should know about it.
I am sure that, having said what he did in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, the Minister will agree, at least in principle, that any concessions or arrangements made by the Railways Board should be obvious for all to see. It should be a matter of commercial confidence and there should be an arbiter who makes a decision. The arrangements should be arm's length commercial arrangements and the proposed investment should comply with commercial investment criteria. I am sure the Minister will only be too pleased to accept the principle of this amendment. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I agree in principle with the noble Lord's desire, but I cannot accept that it is necessary or appropriate to impose the further safeguards called for in this new clause. The noble Lord recognises that contracts entered into by the board in pursuit of its commercial activities are likely to be commercially confidential. His proposals for independent examination in such circumstances are aimed at overcoming that difficulty, but even with that feature included the proposals are not acceptable to British Rail or to the Government.
British Rail is required to act commercially in providing services through the tunnel. It is precluded from receiving government grant in support of those services. Yet it is not to be trusted to enter into any arrangement with Eurotunnel on commercial terms. And it is apparently not considered capable of taking its own decisions about what is a commercial investment. I find these propositions frankly insulting to British Rail management. If the noble Lord were running a business which involved him entering into a contract with Eurotunnel, he would not expect the terms of that contract to be opened up to public scrutiny so that it could be judged whether he had made the right commercial decision.
I hope that, on further consideration, the noble Lord will accept that we have in Clause 41 placed an effective bar on government funds leaking to Eurotunnel through BR, and that he will feel able to withdraw this new clause.
Lord Mulley: The Minister is probably right when he says that he can understand why British Rail is reluctant to give any information, but this is a two-way situation. I know only what appeared in the
578
press at the time. I understood that Mr. Morton of Eurotunnel was anxious to make arrangements as to how payments from British Rail and the French railways would be made before the trains went through the tunnel because he considered this important to him in obtaining the finance necessary to carry forward the project pending the equity issue which, I think, is contemplated for the autumn.
As I understand company law and the requirements of the Stock Exchange, the tunnel's commercial success or failure may depend on the cash flow and the revenue. I understand that in a press release it has been stated that 50 per cent. of the tunnel's capacity will be made available to the railways. Clearly, the amount they will pay for that capacity is crucial in determining whether people will invest. Whether the amendment is accepted or not, I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Minister that the Government will not withhold information from the public, who will be invited to invest in the project. I am bound to tell the Minister that I shall not be one of those investors.
It would be wrong in principle for the ordinary British investor to subscribe the large sums involved without a full disclosure of the recent agreement made by British Rail and the concessionaires. I understand that Members of both Houses of Parliament have sought such information and have been told, as the Minister said, that the contracts are commercial and cannot be disclosed. Any prospectus I have seen inviting the public to invest in a company has to disclose all relevant contracts, both personal, for services rendered, and commercial, which would have a bearing on the future viability and profit capacity, including in many cases, profit forecasts of the company concerned. I should have thought that without knowing what the railways are paying to use the tunnel it would he difficult to ask for public investment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mulley for expanding on what I said. I thought that the Minister would have accepted those remarks. I was slightly peeved that he took exception to what I said as if I did not trust British Rail. It is not that I do not trust British Rail. About nine years ago when the Transport Select Committee of another place dealt with this question there was a big debate as to whether it was to be a mousehole or a proper tunnel carrying freight as well as passenger trains. It was the Treasury which insisted that British Rail could not commit itself because of its public service obligation to guarantee a throughput for whoever was running the tunnel.
It was considered by the Treasury that if any guarantee was given it would come out of the PSBR. I never quite understood why with a huge sum like that, no matter how little was given by British Rail, it would still, in the Treasury's view, be part of the PSBR. It is not an issue that has been dreamed up, but a matter that has been apparent for a very long time. Either directly, or in the way suggested by my noble friend Lord Mulley, there could be an advance about which we did not know or which was unfair to the ordinary shareholders of the UK who are providing some of the public service obligation in

579
another way to British Rail. It is a matter on which we need a proper answer.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I may first explain that the usage contract does not require British Rail to make any payments to Eurotunnel before the tunnel opens. They have agreed to pay a minimum monthly usage charge based on a proportion of the forecast traffic tolls. In British Rail's view this represents a low commerical risk and in return they will be entitled to use 50 per cent. of the capacity of the tunnel for through trains.
On the public service obligation, none of the services through the tunnel will be a part of that. They will either be InterCity or freight, which do not attract the PSO.
On the prospectus—the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley—there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that anything in the prospectus to investors will be any different from any other prospectus issued under United Kingdom law. Therefore if it is a requirement in the prospectus—I cannot say whether it is as I stand here—that these details will be given, so they will be. There is nothing in the Bill that says that anything in the prospectus for this issue should be any different from any other issue.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I shall read with great care what the Minister has said. We shall keep it beside us during the publication of the prospectus. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 94:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
("On-train immigration and customs controls.
.—(1) In the event of provision being made for any United Kingdom immigration or customs controls to be carried out on board trains which are providing international railway services, any additional cost of providing such controls on board those trains (instead of at fixed locations) shall be borne by the Railways Board and shall be treated for the purposes of section 41 of this Act as expenditure properly attributable to revenue account and referable to the provision of international railway services.
(2) In this section "international railway services" has the same meaning as in section 41 of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure that we get Customs and immigration control on the trains and that the charge will not be placed on the taxpayer but on British Rail.
The new clause would ensure that the additional costs were treated for the purposes of Clause 41 of the Bill as:
"expenditure properly attributable to revenue account as is referable to the provision of international railway services".
thus ensuring that the costs cannot be funded by the Government.
On 23rd April 1987 evidence was given on behalf of the Government to the Select Committee of this House that roughly half as many officers again would be required to administer on-train controls compared with fixed-point controls. That is in the Minutes of Evidence at page 24. The Select Committee stated that 80 Customs staff would be likely to be required
580
to carry out checks on trains, while only 30 would be needed if controls were carried out off the trains at Olympia. Immigration staff would also need to be increased but not by so great a proportion.
Counsel for the Government stated to the Committee on 23rd April that paragraph 15 of the concession makes provision for the additional costs caused by these different types of controls to be borne by the concessionaires in the case of the shuttle service. In the case of through trains, however, the relevant body is British Rail. Counsel said that discussions as to whether British Rail would have to bear the additional costs of the extra personnel is a matter which has not yet been resolved. The amendment that I have put forward seeks to help the Government to resolve this matter. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment in the spirit in which I am moving it. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I first confirm that we are looking urgently at whether there should be an early commitment—which I explained last Thursday—to provide on-train controls for through trains going beyond London. This amendment would require British Rail to pay any additional costs associated with on-train controls if it is decided to have them.
Despite the persuasive case put up by the noble Lord, the Government believe that the amendment would be prejudicial to reaching the appropriate and fair solution and are therefore opposed to it. The Government's starting point is the commitment that I set out to the Committee last week to be evenhanded between services using the tunnel and competing services, whether they are the ferries, which will be in competition with Eurotunnel's shuttle services, or the airlines, which may be the main competitors of the through train services.
The general approach of HM Customs and the immigration service is to provide facilities for all persons entering or leaving the UK in the most efficient, practicable way. In cases where operators or users require special facilities, there are certain precedents for HM Customs, although not immigration, to receive payments for extra services.
The Government therefore certainly do not rule out charging the operators for the additional costs of on-train controls. But such an approach does presuppose that there is a practicable alternative way of carrying out the controls at less cost to the Customs and immigration services. As we have heard, however, it has been argued that there is no reasonable and practicable alternative to on-train controls for certain trains. If one follows that argument, one concludes that there can be no such thing as additional costs. It is a fact that in the past Customs and immigration authorities have adjusted to the different circumstances of new forms of transport, and their services are, with a few exceptions, provided free of charge.
The arguments are therefore not clear-cut. It is nearly six years before the tunnel opens, and I ask the Committee not to tie the Government's hands in the task of reaching a fair solution to this question. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure he sees the dilemma that we find. There could be an argument that the cost would be the aspect that would defeat the assessment on the Customs and immigration on the through service. It would be a pity if such a thing happened and it would do great harm to the acceptability of the tunnel in the country as a whole.
On a matter such as this no one wants to tie the Government's hands. We want them to look at these matters with as open a mind as possible, bearing in mind the responsibilities they have to the whole country. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 42 to 45 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 95:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Consequential Developments
Having regard to development pressures likely to arise from the construction of the Channel Tunnel and other new transport infrastructure to the east of London, the Secretary of State shall within six months of the date of passing of this Act lay before Parliament a report giving guidelines for the protection of the natural beauty, wildlife interest and amenities of the countryside.")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is fairly clear. I shall be as brief as possible in view of the hour. A recent report prepared for the Council for the Protection of Rural England highlights a number of issues in connection with the development of the Channel Tunnel and points out that the tunnel is only one of a number of factors which are likely to result in unprecedented development pressure in Kent and the South-East. The report identifies the major thrust of development pressures as originating in and from London, especially East London, following the City's Big Bang, the extension of the M.11 motorway through East London and new economic activity in the docklands
The Government agreed with the Council for the Protection of Rural England in a letter dated 10th October 1986 that the Channel Tunnel would indeed create:
"strong pressures for development in Kent".
However, they rely on the Kent structure plan and the Kent impact study to regulate these pressures and so too does the report of the Select Committee which we have before us.
The Minister will probably answer that safeguards exist in the Kent county structure plan and the Kent impact study, but these can no longer be relied upon. The Kent structure plan is in the process of review and I have in my possession a copy of the recommendations that are being made as part of that review. The findings of the Kent impact study are a material factor in the review. The structure plan is likely to play a more prominent role than the impact study. The consultation document containing the new policies, which is to be published today, includes references to the need to provide,
"an ordered basis for the release of green field sites and to examine the potential for releasing sites within the green belt for retail operations
582
in response to the new demands created by the Channel Tunnel and the M.25".
I use this just as an illustration, but the pressures are real. As regards the Kent structure plan there is every indication that the pressures will win and that Kent will yield. In any case in the longer term the Government have already said that structure plans will be abolished though we do not have a date for that.
Even if the structure plan was not in danger the issue would need to be dealt with on a different basis, because it is a regional issue and not a county one. There is no evidence that other adjacent counties are addressing the issue even to the extent that it is being done in Kent. The CPRE therefore believes, and I support the view, that this amendment is essential to provide for a full regional analysis of likely development pressures and to identify measures for securing the protection of the wildlife, landscape and amenity of the countryside. It is simply an attempt to have established guidelines against which applications can be measured and developers will know from the start where the line is likely to be drawn. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: In rising to support my noble friend in this amendment I hope the Committee will agree that the publication of guidelines along these lines would be extremely important and desirable.
My one criticism is that it is confined to:
"other new transport infrastructure to the east of London",
whereas in this case the development in other parts of the country, not only in the east, is being affected. The suggestion is for guidelines for the protection of the beauty, interest and amenities of the whole countryside. I should prefer the wording to be different but the principle is there and I hope the Minister will view it favourably.
Lord Belstead: I recognise that the Channel Tunnel and other major infrastructure projects will create strong pressures for development. Nevertheless, local planning authorities already have powers to control unsuitable development and they are encouraged to apply them by well established national policies for the protection of the countryside as a whole, to which the Government remain firmly committed. That is the nub of the answer which I give to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
The noble Baroness referred to structure plans being succeeded by a different system of district development plans, which we believe will have advantages. The new system will still require district development plans to be in conformity with county policies for the area, and any way the forthcoming review of the Kent structure plan will be carried out under the existing development plan framework and procedures. Its timing is such as to enable the results of the Kent impact study, which is being undertaken under the aegis of the Kent joint consultative committee and due to be completed by the end of this month, to be considered.
I was sorry to hear that the noble Baroness did not have very much confidence in the results of those procedures, but I do not think that that is a reason for

583
simply plucking away the responsibility from county level, for the structure plan review will address the impact of the Channel Tunnel and will seek to balance the need to encourage development with the need to protect and enhance the countryside. I suggest that that is the proper context in which matters concering consequential development should be considered in a way which will give all interested parties an opportunity to comment both during the formal consultation processes and at the examination in public. There is also a continuing forum for such matters to be fully aired in the Joint Consultative Committee, to which I have just referred, and in which the Government are of course also a partner.
These issues were all raised before the Select Committee of your Lordships' House and the committee indicated that they were "confident that these concerns are best dealt with at local level". If the noble Baroness will forgive me, although I listened carefully to her, I think that the answer that the Select Committee gave is the right answer.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful to the Minister for his, as usual, courteous reply. I still feel that there is an argument to be made for a regional approach on this and I should still like to see general guidelines for the protection of the country side which were outside any local plan, because quite often there is a conflict when the boundary is crossed. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Interpretation]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 96 to 98:
Page 33, line 25, leave out (", 16A, 17A, 18A, 19A, 20A")
Page 33, line 27, leave out ("Bill for this Act") and insert ("Channel Tunnel Bill")
Page 33, line 29, at end insert ("in April 1986 and the plans and sections so deposited in July 1986;")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 96, 97, and 98 en bloc. The amendments are consequential on the Bill being reintroduced. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No.99 not moved].
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 33, line 47, leave out ("(together with its supplementary protocols and arrangements)")
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
[Amendment No.101 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.102:
Page 34, line 18, at end insert—
(" "substance" means any natural or artificial substance, whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour;")
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 45. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The scheduled works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.103:
Page 36, line 27, leave out ("the")
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply deletes a redundant word. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Supplementary provisions as to the scheduled works and other authorised works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos.104 to 110:
Page 43, line 13, at end insert—
("() references to the company are references to the Concessionaires;")
Page 43, line 22, at end insert ("and").
Page 43, leave out lines 27 to 33.
Page 43, line 36, leave out ("railway").
Page 43, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) For the purposes of the provisions of the said Clauses Acts so incorporated and applicable to the Concessionaires and the Railways Board—

(a)section 87 of the said Act of 1845 shall have effect as if for the words from "company, being" to "other railway" there were substituted the word "body" and for the words "other company", where secondly occurring, there were substituted the words "other body"; and

(b)section 88 of the said Act of 1845 shall have effect as if for the word "companies", in both places where it occurs, there were substituted the word "bodies" and for the word "company" there were substituted the word "body".").

Page 44, line 22, leave out (", water or") and insert ("or waterpipes,").
Page 46, line 10, leave out ("all conditions (if any)") and insert ("any conditions").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move Amendments Nos. 104 to 110 en bloc. The first five amendments I spoke to with Amendment No. 83, and Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 are purely drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 48, line 37, after ("Board") insert ("shall not carry out any preparatory work or site clearance and").
The noble Baroness said: In rising to move Amendment No. 112, with the Committee's leave, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 113, 114, 115, 116 and 122. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I take just a little longer than usual to sort out those amendments, but I think that in the end we shall save time.
The purpose of all these amendments is to achieve, if we can, the preservation of some part of Scrubs Wood, with which I am sure all noble Lords are now familiar because there has been a lot of publicity about it, to make sure that consultations about it are adequate, and to ensure if possible that at least a measure of the wood— if possible, most of it—can be restored and that there are adequate funds with which to do it.
I shall now work through the amendments as quickly as I can. Amendment No. 112 deals with the question of clearance works: that is, works which could be undertaken by British Rail before the actual work on the depot starts. It appears that earlier redrafting, which involved moving government amendments from their position after the description of works, has reduced the strength of the provision by allowing the consultation about the effects of construction rather than all works including construction. That would mean that there is nothing to stop clearance work being carried out and, as you will appreciate, that could be very destructive in a nature reserve. That could be done immediately. We seek to secure consultation prior to any work, preparatory or otherwise, so that the possible detrimental effect of that work can be minimised. I believe that British Rail would be sympathetic to this, and 1 hope that the Government will be too.
I understand that British Rail has given an assurance that should the project fail for any reason they would be willing to discuss the possibility of leasing the area as a nature reserve. It would be a pity if it were to be destroyed in the meantime by preparation works. Some damage has already been done during survey, and proper consultation in the future would reduce the possibility of this kind of thing happening again.
On Amendment No. 113, we feel that the Nature Conservancy Council should be added to the list for consultation. This seems a sensible move. It has been very helpful over the whole project and it would seem not unusual to want to put it on the list. I hope that that, too, is something the Government will be prepared to accept.
I am afraid that this is quite a complicated exercise. The arguments as regards Amendment No. 114, are the same as for Amendment No. 112. We then come to Amendment No. 115, which is concerned with the putting back of what has been removed. It is felt that the money being suggested by British Rail—I think a sum of £36,000—is really far too small to be of any use. In a scheme of such high overall cost—we have heard a lot about it this evening—the estimates which have been offered by the London Wildlife Trust and the Scrubs Wood Group seem modest enough. As I have said, the figure suggested by British Rail is totally unrealistic. It would be interesting to know how they arrived at it. The cost of the depot we are discussing is £41·9 million, and in that context £36,000 to reinstate a nature reserve seems peanuts. Surely the re-locating of what is a very important reserve to the people who live around it—because after all it is an urban area and there is nowhere else within easy reach where people can enjoy access to a
586
nature reserve—seems important enough to justify just a little more expenditure.
Finally, as regards Amendment No. 116 in this small group, if in the first instance the amount of land used for the depot was as small as possible, obviously it would reduce not only the upset felt by the residents but the possible cost of reinstating the nature reserve. In addition, it would give an advantage in reinstating the nature reserve in that a lot of the scrub land could be saved and there would not be a break of several years before it could be re-established.
A draft undertaking from the railways board to the borough of Hammersmith states that the board will use its best endeavours to locate its work. I believe that we should take it up on that point and keep the amount of land used as small as possible. I understand that the local authority responsible for the land which adjoins Scrubs Wood is willing to allow part of it—if not as much as is needed—to be used as a nature reserve. So there is no problem in that respect.
Amendment No. 122 is a simple case of adding the London Wildlife Trust to the list of those to be consulted. After all, it knows more about the area than anyone else. The Nature Conservancy Council has recommended that the London Wildlife Trust should be involved. British Rail's report states the need to involve the trust in management.
11 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: I support my noble friend on this series of amendments. The Committee must be quite well acquainted with Scrubs Wood and will not need reminding of its importance as a habitat not only of insects and plants, including trees, but in particular of birds which are my interest. Some 99 species are recorded as having been found there, many of them breeding species. But many more are migrating birds using the land on their way to and from warmer climates.
The existence of Scrubs Wood arises solely from the complete neglect over many years of the area alongside the railway by British Rail and its predecessor the Great Western Railway. Therefore, after decades, a little wilderness has grown up alongside the railway track. That does not say much for British Rail. But it has accidentally created a marvellous habitat for wildlife. I feel that British Rail has behaved so badly over the area that it no longer has any claim to it. Ornithologists and bird watchers in the area have established a kind of squatters' right to it.
So far as one can tell from the description of the work to be carried out, it is basically the construction of a railway line and the establishment of a maintenance shed. The need for it arises in order to provide maintenance facilities for British Rail for rolling stock and locomotives using Waterloo. So much new transport will be entering Waterloo that there will have to be new ways of maintaining the stock. I am not at all clear why, in order to maintain rolling stock using Waterloo, it must be taken to Wormwood Scrubs and maintained there. That apparently is the intention. I should have thought that it would he better for the work to be done

587
somewhere south of London rather than bringing it through London to the Scrubs.
Amendment No. 112 includes the carrying out of any preparatory work or site clearance along with the other matters enumerated in line 37. It seems to me to be clearly necessary and I do not see that there can be any objection.
The thinking behind Amendment No. 115 is that an environment has been created in which birds will breed. It is now intended to destroy about half of that environment. There is an area of two or three hectares on the westerly extremity which is to be left as it was so that the birds can continue to breed there and use it as a staging post in their flight to Africa or wherever. The proposal is to plant young trees and let the land grow wild in another part of Wormwood Scrubs so that the birds can nest there and rest their weary wings when the rest of the site has been taken over by a maintenance depot and some railway sidings.
That is certainly better than nothing. However, any Member of the Committee who knows anything about birds will know that one cannot just persuade birds to go and nest somewhere else. If one takes away half their habitat and puts down some trees half a mile away, it will take seven to 10 years before another habitat is created and by then the birds will have flown away or maybe stopped coming to Britain; or maybe they will not be nesting any more or will be nesting elsewhere.
It is the purest luck if, having planted a lot of trees elsewhere in Wormwood Scrubs, then in seven or 10 years' time the garden warblers, willow warblers, chiff chaffs and others come and build their nests there. In my opinion the right course is to leave Scrubs Wood as it is and build the depot somewhere else.
Lord Belstead: We have already made provision in Schedule 2, paragraph 11 of this Bill for consultation with the local authorities and the London Wildlife Trust, so that they can offer advice on the mitigation of the harmful environmental effects to which both the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, have referred, when the North Pole depot, as it is called, is constructed on the edge of Wormwood Scrubs.
However, these amendments go a good deal further than that. In the Government's view they go too far. Two of the amendments, Nos. 112 and 114, require consultation before preparatory work is carried out. During the proceedings of the Select Committee, the London Wildlife Trust raised the question of extending the consultation requirement to clearance of the land and asked British Rail to give an undertaking that it would not at any time alter the site in any way without adequate prior consultation. The noble Baroness said that she thought that British Rail was sympathetic to that course. Indeed, British Rail was able to give an assurance that if the London Wildlife Trust wished to identify a particular species or habitat that it wanted to preserve or remove, that opportunity would be given. I believe that we ought to accept that assurance in good faith.
588
The next amendment requires consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. I understand that the NCC is content with the arrangements about consultation on the North Pole works and is not itself seeking statutory consultation. If I may say so, I believe that this fact renders that amendment unnecessary.
The next amendment seeks to extend consultations further to embrace landscaping and associated works on a replacement area for land lost at Scrubs Wood. British Rail undertakings on this matter have already been offered to the local authorities before the Select Committee. As the noble Baroness said, the board will carry out or contribute toward planting and other works in accordance with a scheme to be agreed, to a maximum cost of £36,000.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said that she wondered about the basis of that figure, I can tell her that it is based on an illustrative scheme that has already been prepared by British Rail, and the Select Committee felt that British Rail could not be expected to do more. I must say that the Government share that view.
Amendment No. 116 seeks to ensure that as much British Rail land at Scrubs Wood as possible is left for the purposes of nature conservation. British Rail has already offered the local authorities an undertaking that it will use its best endeavours to locate the facilities and works so as to maximise the area of land to be conveyed to the council for use as an ecological park. Again, I think that the undertaking given ought to be accepted in good faith.
Finally, Amendment No. 122 seeks to give a statutory right of consultation to the London Wildlife Trust, and I do not think that the London Wildlife Trust ought to have a higher profile than the voluntary environmental bodies in Kent. Indeed, this amendment would put the trust on the same footing as the statutory conservation bodies which are mentioned in the Bill.
The environmental bodies have received an assurance from the local planning authorities that they will be consulted on matters which affect their interest. I am pleased to say that the London boroughs within whose boundaries Scrubs Wood is located—that is to say, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Ealing—have both agreed to consult the London Wildlife Trust and other appropriate bodies on the same basis as the Kent environmental bodies are to be consulted. I therefore believe that the substance of what is being sought in this final amendment has already been given in those undertakings and that that matter ought to rest there.
I am sorry to sound resistant to all these amendments but it is because I genuinely feel that each has been met by the undertakings which have been given—undertakings which I think ought to be accepted.
Lord Kilbracken: Can the noble Lord say whether the figure he mentioned of £36,000 is intended to include the purchase of the land, or merely the planting, care and maintenance of the land?
Lord Belstead: As far as I know, it is for the planting and laying out of the land.
Baroness Nicol: The Minister seems to base his case on the need to trust the undertaking given by British Rail. I am sorry to say that the damage that has been done to the site as a preliminary to survey work has been done within the last two weeks, which is after the undertaking was given. Noble Lords can scarcely be surprised therefore if the London Wildlife Trust and the other local groups feel a little diffident about accepting the rest of British Rail's undertakings. I am sorry to have to undermine the Minister's argument but this is a fact, and somewhere I have photographs of the damage.
As far as the £36,000 is concerned, I understand that that would roughly pay for the fencing around the area. The London Wildlife Trust has just received a report from land use consultants giving them details of the possible cost of reinstatement of Scrubs Wood together with certain environmental works. The report is broken down, and I shall not bore the Committee with it at this hour of the night, but the total cost is approaching £250,000, not £36,000. Certainly, the trust's own estimates were somewhere in the region of £140,000. So I do not think that we are talking about realistic money when we talk about £36,000.
However, I can see that we are not going to get anywhere this evening and I am afraid that at this stage I must withdraw the amendment. However, I do so very reluctantly because I am aware of the feelings of the trust regarding British Rail's undertakings. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 112.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): I should point out that only Amendment No. 112 was moved and that we have been debating, because they were spoken to initially, Amendments Nos. 113, 114, 115, 116 and 122, which were never moved formally. So those amendments are not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 116 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 120:
Page 59, line 21, leave out ("for all purposes of the law relating to highways")
Page 59, line 32, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 35
Page 60, line 36, after ("were") insert (", as from the commencement of its construction,")
Page 61, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("which involve the construction or alteration of a highway")
The noble Lord said: I hope that it is convenient to the Committee if I move Amendments Nos. 117 to 120 en bloc. These are technical or drafting amendments and I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Planning permission]:
11.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 64, line 53, at end insert—
("Protection of site at Holywell Coombe)
6A.—(1) No part of Work No. 3 shall be constructed in any part of the protected site.
(2) Nothing shall be done in any part of the protected site in connection with the construction of that work except necessary drainage work and landscaping of the site.
(3) No part of that work shall be constructed, and nothing shall be done in connection with the construction of that work, anywhere else unless—

(a) the southern boundary of the protected site is fenced; or

(b) that boundary has been fenced but the fencing has been temporarily removed because it was necessary to remove it in order to carry out necessary drainage work or landscaping of the site.

(4) In this paragraph "the protected site" means the area of land at Holywell Coombe in the district of Shepway (town of Folkestone) bounded on the southern side by a straight line between National Grid reference points 622058E 138078N and 622138E 138095N, on the western and eastern sides by straight lines passing due north from each of those points to the limit of deviation of Work No. 3 and on the northern side by that limit.").
The noble Lord said: Representations were made to the Select Committee by the Nature Conservancy Council and other environmental bodies about the impact of the railway tunnel on two scientifically interesting geological deposits in Holywell Coombe which contain a rich collection of animal and vegetable fossils. The original alignment of the tunnel would have destroyed or severely damaged both deposits. However, in response to representations Eurotunnel agreed to move the centre line of the tunnel to a more southerly alignment—which would save the northern deposit—and to contribute £100,000 towards a rescue dig of the southern deposit.
The Select Committee recommended (in paragraph 33 of its report) that the revised alignment should be written into the Bill. This amendment gives effect to that recommendation, by defining a protected area south of which all the construction works must take place. Incorporation of these requirements in Schedule 3 will mean that they become planning conditions of the deemed planning consent conferred on the concessionaires by Clause 9 and I hope that the Committee will feel that this is the right way to proceed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [The A20 improvement works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 123 to 133:
Page 69, line 47, after ("with") insert ("the").
Page 69, line 56, after ("with") insert ("the").
Page 73, line 47, leave out from beginning to ("the") in page 74, line 1 and insert—
("6.—(1) On the date on which this Act is passed").
Page 74, line 18, leave out ("certified under sub-paragraph (1) above") and insert ("on which this Act is passed").
Page 74, line 36, leave out paragraph 7.
Page 75, line 3, leave out ("7 above") and insert ("9 below").
Page 75, line 13, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 16.
Page 75, line 17, leave out ("(without prejudice to paragraph 7 above)").
Page 75, line 23, after ("Act") insert ("made in relation to the roads which become trunk roads and special roads by virtue of paragraph 6(2) above").
Page 75, line 25, after ("Act") insert ("made in relation to the roads which become trunk roads by virtue of paragraph 6(4) above"). Page 75, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("above") in page 77, line 11 and insert—
("10.—(l) The carrying out of any of the A20 improvement works which is not the construction of a highway and the stopping up of any highway in pursuance of Part II of this Schedule shall be treated as having been authorised by an order under section 14 of the Highways Act 1980 made in relation to the roads which become trunk roads by virtue of paragraph 6(4) above.
(2) Subject to sections 21 and 22 of that Act as they apply by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)").
The noble Lord said: The first two amendments correct tiny slips and the second batch are technical amendments concerned with the status of the A.20 improvement works. If the Members of the Committee wish for a more detailed explanation I shall of course give it but otherwise I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Supplementary provisions as to acquisition of land]:
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos.135 and 136:
Page 80, line 38, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 41.
Page 80, line 43, leave out ("those purposes") and insert ("the purposes mentioned in those sections").
The noble Lord said: The first amendment deletes superfluous words and in doing so corrects an inconsistency in the drafting. The second amendment is consequential on the first one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Protective provisions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos.138 to 147:
Page 88, line 28, leave out ("constructing or carrying out works of maintenance on") and insert ("carrying out any work for the construction or maintenance of).
Page 88, line 32, leave out ("such part") and insert ("the work").
Page 88, line 35, leave out ("construction of such part") and insert ("carrying out of the work").
Page 88, line 38, leave out ("that part of the works") and insert ("the works").
Page 88, line 39, leave out ("constructed") and insert ("carried out").
Page 88, line 42, leave out ("part of the works") and insert ("work").
Page 88, line 43, leave out ("constructed and") and insert ("carried out,").
Page 88, line 43, leave out ("or"").
Page 97, line 35, leave out ("be caused or").
Page 97, line 42, leave out ("or interference").
The noble Lord said: These amendments eliminate an ambiguity and an inconsistency in the drafting. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 not moved.]
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 150
Page 100, line 38, at end insert—

PART V(C) PROVISIONS FOR ENABLING CROSS-CHANNEL FERRY OPERATORS TO INTEGRATE THEIR SERVICES
1.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading, release all existing undertakings given by ferry or hovercraft operators to the Secretary of State containing restrictions on co-operation between such operators in respect of cross-Channel car ferry services and the fares and rates charged for such services upon receipt from the operators concerned of substitute undertakings as referred to in subparagraph (2) below.
(2) Such operators shall enter into substitute undertakings to the Secretary of State in the following or a substantially similar form—

(a) to provide ferry services reasonably sufficient to meet the demands of the cross-Channel ferry market for all categories of traffic until the opening of the tunnel system; and

(b) to maintain fares and rates for all categories of traffic using such services at or below those levels subsisting at the date of the passing of this Act until the opening of the tunnel system, subject to adjustment for increases in operating costs properly incurred.

(3) In this paragraph "hovercraft" has the same meaning as in the Hovercraft Act 1968.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this late hour I hesitate to detain the Committee. However, this amendment is directed to a very real problem to which I think, at a later stage, we should give further consideration; namely, how to ensure that adequate ferry services are maintained in the interval between now and when the tunnel opens. If the ferry operators follow the advice of the Select Committee and apply proper commercial standards—the pursuit of the profit motive—then clearly services will begin to tail off some time before the tunnel is ready, to the detriment of our trade both in tourism and in goods. Perhaps it would be better to ask the Government at another hour their views on how best to deal with that matter. However, the Minister may wish to give a preliminary view at this stage.
One suggested solution is that the ferry operators, together with the Secretary of State, should try to work out a reasonable schedule of ferry services in this difficult period, not least because the cash flow of the operators varies greatly with the season. They make a lot of money in the summer and very little in the winter. It would be sensible, I suppose, if many of them closed at the end of the summer season in 1992. Then we should lose the capacity for freight and so on until the tunnel was ready. That would be a very serious problem. I think it demands a rather more careful and mature consideration than we are likely to be able to give as the hour approaches midnight.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall take the opportunity, if I may, of responding briefly to the amendment of the noble Lord. No doubt he can read what I have said and, if necessary, come back to the issue at another stage.
This amendment would release European Ferries and Sea link from undertakings they gave following

593
the 1974 report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on cross-channel car services. Those undertakings were not to agree tariffs, not to enter into new pooling agreements without the Secretary of State's prior approval and not to discuss tariffs without arranging for a record to be sent to the Director General of Fair Trading within 30 days. Subsequently, in 1982, European Ferries gave a further undertaking not to seek a merger with Sealink.
The ferry companies wish to be released from these undertakings in order to be free to integrate their operations in a manner which would enable them to compete more effectively with Eurotunnel's frequent no-booking shuttle service. As the Select Committee noted in paragraph 80 of their special report, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, rejected last October an application by the companies for release from the undertakings. However, the Secretary of State pointed out that the undertakings did not prevent the companies from discussing ways in which they might respond to the prospective competition of the tunnel, provided that a record of the discussion was sent to the Director General of Fair Trading. But if the companies wished to make a specific proposal for co-ordinating or integrating their services, it would need to be considered by the Office of Fair Trading against the circumstances prevailing at the time.
The Select Committee accepted that the Director General would need to take many factors into account, including the effect on users of any reduction in competition between the ferries in the period before the tunnel opens. The substitute undertakings proposed in subsection (2) of the amendment are unsatisfactory, not least because they would be statutory and inflexible, whereas under the present system the Director General has a duty to keep undertakings under review and to recommend to the Secretary of State whether the undertakings should be varied in the light of changing circumstances. The Select Committee concluded that it would he wrong to pre-empt the Director General's judgment by writing the ferry operators' amendment into the Bill.
In its response to the Select Committee's report the Government confirmed that the Director General would, when considering any proposals from the ferry operators for integrating their services, take into account the possibility that the operators would otherwise restrict their investment or curtail their services in the period before the tunnel opens, which was the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, in moving the amendment.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it would be wrong to pre-empt the decision of the Director General in the way this amendment would do, and that he will consider what I have said before returning to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Mulley: I am most grateful to the Minister. I think I speak for all Members who have been concerned with this debate when I say that I
594
congratulate him on the way in which he has conducted the Committee. It is a very demanding task dealing with one amendment after another and he has performed with great courtesy and efficiency for the benefit of us all. I shall read very carefully the report of what he said in regard to the problem that I have just raised and, if necessary, will perhaps seek an alternative form at a later stage. I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eleven o'clock.