HL Deb 16 July 1987 vol 488 cc1160-6

3.27 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 12 [Controls on board trains engaged on international services:]

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 13, line 43, leave out ("London or")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that at the Report stage of the Bill, following discussions at the Committee stage the Government agreed with your Lordships, that customs and immigration procedures on international trains should be part of the arrangements in the Bill. We were grateful for the Government's consideration of that matter. Those of us interested in making sure that long-distance trains to more distant parts of the country are effective and commercially viable were grateful for that concession.

However, the situation remains that although passengers boarding a train in Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow or Edinburgh will be able to travel straight through to Paris, Brussels, or wherever, and have their customs and immigration arrangements dealt with on the train, people coming from London will have to go to Waterloo and pass through what has been described as airport-type facilities. Those noble Lords who regularly pass through airport-type facilities will know that they cause considerable delay. Frequently one must arrive at an airport an hour or two before departure. 1 am not suggesting that there will be that degree of delay at Waterloo but, undoubtedly, to have to check in baggage and go through immigration control there will cause greater delays than simply by getting on the train.

As I understand it, the cost of building the facilities at Waterloo has been estimated at approximately £7 million. That figure will not be borne by the taxpayer but by British Rail; but I have the impression that British Rail is not too anxious to construct those facilities unless it has to. In any case, at the end of the day the cost will be borne by the travelling public.

Not to build those facilities will cause less interference to the environment at Waterloo, where local people are already somewhat upset by the degree of interference which is to be placed on their lives by an increase in the number of travelling public. We should not dismiss that consideration too lightly. In France and in Belgium, in Paris and in Brussels, one simply will not have to go through these immigration and Customs facilities. It will all be done on the trains. It is my contention that if it is good enough for Paris and Brussels it ought to be good enough for London.

The Select Committee did not pronounce on the subject of Waterloo. It said very strongly that there should be Customs and immigration facilities on long-distance trains from north of London, but it did not pronounce itself as being opposed to those facilities being at Waterloo.

Finally, if the Single European Act succeeds, as we hope it will, in reaching a position where the internal market is such that the internal Customs and internal immigration problems are overcome by 1992, there will be no need for those facilities on what is now a land frontier. In the past the argument has been that in this country we were different from the Continent because they all had land frontiers whereas we had only sea frontiers. But of course with the Channel Tunnel we shall now have a land frontier.

For that reason and for others, though those may be less important, I believe that we should take this last opportunity of trying to persuade the Government that it is not necessary to have this large and expensive facility at Waterloo—this facility which will certainly not facilitate the transport of passengers. It is on that basis that I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and consider with it Amendment No. 2.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot support the noble Lord in his amendment. Having moved an amendment in Committee leaving Waterloo in, and the Government proposing to leave Waterloo out at Report stage and giving very good reasons, my noble friend said he would keep this under review. But I do not think one can ask the Government at this stage to commit themselves to agree to this sort of thing.

A great deal of success was achieved in agreement on frontier controls as regards cross-country trains. The noble Lord at that time was also speaking for other departments, where this is an entirely new concept. There are different situations on the Continent. Although I believe it would be very nice for people to have the same facilities as when they are getting on at Paris or Brussels, it is not comparing like with like. Sadly, therefore, I think we must wait to see what happens in the next six years and not decide this afternoon.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, this is an amendment which frankly I should have liked to support and add my name to. My noble friend Lord Carmichael and I had some difficulty in so far as we withdrew our own amendment, which would have provided for this because the Government had moved and accepted a position of there being Customs and immigration facilities on trains north of London. But I noticed that when the Minister dealt with this on 13th July, at col. 877 of Hansard, he said: However, there is, of course, nothing in the new clause"— that is the clause which the Government introduced— to prevent on-train controls being introduced for those services of British Rail (or the operator, whoever it is) and the appropriate government departments agree". I wonder whether the Minister could give some assurance now that if British Rail should make such a request for all trains and not just those north of London, and if the appropriate government departments agree, there will be no opposition from the Treasury if such a request is made by British Rail. One has a feeling that even the government clause had to be fought for very hard against the Treasury interests. I hope the Government themselves would agree with the principle, if British Rail should make such a request, that there would be no opposition from the Treasury.

Lord Ampthill

My Lords, with great regret, I do not feel able to support this amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just said, all of us who sat on the Select Committee—indeed, the whole House—are deeply grateful that the Government have followed the recommendation that we made and have agreed that what we now call in shorthand "trains travelling to the north of London" will have this facility. I personally remain of the conviction that the bulk of travellers—70 per cent. seems to be the agreed proportion—who will be travelling to London from either Paris or Brussels will find it more convenient if airport-type facilities are available at the terminus rather than if they had to go through the business on the trains.

So far as concerns immigration, this is a problem which might be dealt with more comfortably on the train but I remain convinced that as you lose the facility of the red and green channels—which implies that everybody on the train will be passing through the red channel—there is going to be what I think we might call the embarrassment factor of selected passengers having their luggage brought down from the rack and inspected in front of everybody in the carriage. That could well mitigate against this being regarded as an advantage.

I am afraid I was lost completely by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that it would require a person to arrive at the terminal one hour or so in advance so that this might happen. It does not happen at airports for the reason that when one has to get there in advance; it is for the benefit of the carrier. However, we have won a great concession from the Government in this case. It is in the Bill that if the facility is thought to be wise it should be introduced in the future, so the legislation provides for that.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, it did not take long on Monday in this House for the euphoria of the Government's new clause in respect of on-train controls to be overtaken by the argument, "if it can be done for trains beyond London, why not for trains to Waterloo too?" That came as no surprise to the Government but I should make it clear at the outset that the Government did not limit what is now in Clause 12 to trains beyond London because that was the least they felt they could get away with. It was because the balance of advantage and disadvantage of imposing a duty on the Government is really very different in respect of the Waterloo services.

The Government accept that one of the important safeguards built into Clause 12 as it now is—that there is no duty to provide on-train controls where BR does not ask for them—also safeguards BR's position if the House were to adopt this amendment. If BR felt that too much revenue-earning space would be taken up by the necessary check-in facilities or if it did not wish to bear any charges the Government may eventually decide to impose in respect of the exercise of controls in this way, it could indeed simply not apply for on-train controls; and so its interests are well covered.

However, it is the Government's interests in this that are not adequately catered for. The Government have a duty to use their financial resources and manpower efficiently and economically. HM Customs have estimated that approximately half as many Customs officers again would be required for on-train controls as for conventional static controls. For trains bound beyond London, already covered by Clause 12, as the House has heard, there is no commercially attractive alternative to carrying out controls on the train, but the viability of these services may well depend upon them. The Government are prepared to accept the increased calls upon their manpower and resources, and reserve their oposition in relation to the cost.

However, for trains to London the arguments are quite different. For a start, on British Rail's estimates there will be two or three times as many passengers using trains to London as using trains to more distant destinations. Therefore the scale of the potential call on the Government's resources is much greater.

Secondly, the need for on-train controls is not the same. All the trains arrive at the same station, so that a system of airport-type controls is a completely viable alternative. It undoubtedly represents the best use of the Government's resources and it does not cast any doubt on the viability of the service. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, that it is far from obvious whether passengers bound for London would prefer on-train controls. It will not be popular if Customs and immigration officers question people in close proximity to their fellow passengers.

It will be still less popular for passengers to be taken away to interview rooms for questioning or to have to take their baggage there to be searched. However, that will be absolutely necessary if we are not to abandon our campaign against drugs and terrorism. The officials may arrive just as passengers are embarking on the final course of a meal in the restaurant car; compare that with a system of red and green channels where the great majority of passengers pass through the green channel without interruption.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned possible delays owing to exit checks but the only checks that passengers will have to go through on exit, apart from any security checks that obviously may need to be carried out before boarding, are passport checks. There are no Customs checks on ordinary travellers upon exit and even passport checks are now carried out upon exit on a selective basis, only a proportion of passengers being checked on exit at airports.

The Government have concluded therefore that any perceived need for on-train controls does not, in the case of trains bound to or from London, justify a prior commitment to undertake the heavy burden that such a system of checks would place upon the resources" of HM Customs and Excise and immigration. But I emphasise, as I did when I introduced this clause, that there is nothing in the clause to prevent on-train controls on the Waterloo trains if British Rail and the government departments concerned agree.

I cannot go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would like me to go and say that there would be no opposition from the Treasury on this matter for the reasons that I put forward in my speech, but I hope that with the explanation that I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will not press his amendment this afternoon.

Lord Galpern

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware of a news bulletin from Kent Radio this morning which said that Customs officers have voted not to agree to travel aboard Channel Tunnel trains because they do not consider that the system is safe? Does he have any comment to make on that statement?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have not heard that announcement. I only hope that during the course of the next six years we shall be able to sort out that question.

Lord Tordoff

Indeed, my Lords, I wonder whether that kind of attitude does not lie behind some of the difficulties that we have already had. I am not trying to detract from the fact that the Government changed their mind between the Committee and Report stages and were good enough to say so. That is something that takes a certain amount of courage on the part of any government and we are grateful for it.

Perhaps I may deal with one or two of the points raised in this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said that this system was a new concept. It is not a new concept at all but one that has existed for many years on the Continent. Paris and Brussels are indeed no different from London when it coins to such a decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has rightly noted what the Minister said at Report stage, and he has made the same statement just now; namely, that there is nothing in the Act to stop on-train Customs from Waterloo if that is desired later. The only hurdle that will be there to stop it will be an investment of £7 million into the equipment that has been installed in order to have airport-type facilities. That investment will not lightly be thrown away. All I am suggesting is that we should look forward somewhat and before that amount of money is invested we should take the decision now to put customs and immigration on to trains from Waterloo.

The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, is deeply grateful to the Government. That comes as no surprise. However, I must refute the notion that 70 per cent. of people will find the system more convenient and that it will be for the benefit of the carrier. There is bound to be some delay in passing through airport-type Customs. It may not be an hour, as I said in my opening remarks, but the process is bound to take some time. I n order to catch a train, one will have to arrive at the station some while before the normal departure time so as to go through Customs and to queue up at immigration control. The procedure may take only half an hour but it will make a difference to the time that people arrive as well as to the number of people who will be milling around Waterloo waiting to board trains.

The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is very frank when he says that the real reason behind this move is the question of the best use of government resources. I understand that and also that the Treasury would not be very pleased to find the money to make that desired change. However, the cost is now being put back on to the travelling public who will have to pay directly instead of through taxes.

It seems to me that it is turning back the clock to suggest that it is not popular to go off to interview rooms and that we have to consider those sad people who are disturbed during their dinner in the restaurant car. After all it has been happening on the Continent. I know that they are all foreign over there but the system seems to work.

I was interested to hear what the Minister said on the subject of exit checks but I have to remind him that I did not mention them. I am sure that that point was put into his brief by a cautious gentleman somewhere in a box, but I do not remember referring to exit checks.

It seems to me that we now have an opportunity to get the situation straight from the start and that we ought to keep the travelling public in mind. This is the last chance that the House will have to make up its mind and therefore I intend to press the amendment.

3.46 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 128.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Airedale, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Amherst, E. Lovell-Davis, L.
Banks, L. McGregor of Durris, L.
Beswick, L. Mclntosh of Haringey, L.
Blease, L. McNair, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. Mais, L.
Brockway, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Bruce of Donington, L. Merrivale, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Molloy, L.
Denington, B. Mulley, L.
Diamond, L. Rathcreedan, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridgc, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Ezra, L. Rugby, L.
Fitt, L. Sainsbury, L.
Fletcher, L. Seear, B.
Foot, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Galpern, L. Stedman, B. [Teller.]
Gladwyn, L. TordofT, L. [Teller.]
Granville of Eye, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Gregson, L. Whaddon, L.
Hampton, L. Willis, L.
Hanworth, V. Wilson of Langside, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L. Ypres, E.
Jeger, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aldington, L. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Broxbourne, L.
Ampthill, L. Butterworth, L.
Arran, E. Caithness, E.
Astor of Hever, L. Cameron of Lochbroom, L.
Auckland, L. Campbell of Alloway, L.
Beaverbrook, L. Campbell of Croy, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Carnock, L.
Beloff, L. Cathcart, E.
Belstead, L. Craigavon, V.
Bessborough, E. Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Borthwick, L. Dacre of Glanton, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Davidson, V. [Teller.]
Brabazon of Tara, L. De Freyne, L.
Braye, B. Denham, L. [Teller.]
Dundee, E. Mountgarret, V.
Eccles, V. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Effingham, E. Moyne, L.
Elibank, L. Munster, E.
Elliot of Hanvood, B. Newall, L.
Foley, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Fortescue, E. O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Gainford, L. O'Hagan, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Onslow, E.
Glanusk, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Glenarthur, L. Fender, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Porritt, L.
Gridley, L. Portsmouth, E.
Grimston of Westbury, L. Rankeillour, L.
Hankey, L. Reay, L.
Havers, L. Reigate, L.
Hayter, L. Renton, L.
Hesketh, L. Renwick, L.
Hives, L. Rodney, L.
Holderness, L. Romney, E.
Home of the Hirsel, L. St. Davids, V.
Hooper, B. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Sandford, L.
Iddesleigh, E. Sandys, L.
Inglewood, L. Selkirk, E.
Johnston of Rockport, L. Sempill, Ly.
Kimball, L. Shaughnessy, L.
Kinnaird, L. Sidmouth, V.
Knutsford, V. Skelmersdale, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Slim, V.
Lauderdale, E. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Layton, L. Strange, B.
Long, V. Strathcarron, L.
Lothian, M. Sudeley, L.
Luke, L. Teviot, L.
Malmesbury, E. Thorneycroft, L.
Mancroft, L. Trafford, L.
Margadale, L. Tranmire, L.
Marley, L. Trefgarne, L.
Marsh, L. Trumpington, B.
Marshall of Leeds, L. Ullswater, V.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L. Vinson, L.
Ward of Witley, V.
Mersey, V. Windlesham, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V. Wise, L.
Morris, L. Wolfson, L.
Mottistone, L. Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Mountevans, L. Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]