asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have held recent discussions with the Government of France and representatives of Eurotunnel SA on the safety of the Channel Tunnel.

My Lords, through the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission, which brings together the relevant representatives of both Governments, there are regular discussions both between the two Governments and with Eurotunnel. The most recent plenary meeting of the IGC was on 25 September in London, when the Channel Tunnel fire was discussed, as were the measures being taken towards restoration of full services.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a frequent user of the tunnel and thank the Minister for that Answer. When will the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority deliver its report on changes in risk and safety assessments? I think that it is due in September of next year, which seems a long time away. Will he accelerate that in view of the great interest in the matter at the moment? Does he agree that the Channel Tunnel services have recovered enormously since the accident, and that even if its cause were other than what I am about to describe, both Governments should address their priority interest to excluding dangerous materials in heavy vehicles going through the tunnel?

My Lords, I am glad to say that services are getting back to normal. Eurostar services are close to normal and there has been an increase in shuttle paths through the tunnel. On 10 October, Eurotunnel announced that work would now proceed to renovate interval 6 of the north tunnel, which was the affected part of the tunnel, with a view to regaining full operations in the north tunnel by mid-February.

On the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority's investigation, I can add nothing to the Answer that I gave in your Lordships' House a short time ago. There needs to be a thorough investigation and we do not believe that it would be appropriate for either Her Majesty's Government or the French Government to intervene in established processes. We have made it clear that any issues on safety brought to the attention of the two Governments will be acted on immediately.

My Lords, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch reported that Eurotunnel had not installed fire suppression systems, which are available and are specifically designed to protect the tunnel from fires on wagons carrying lorries. It gave as its reason that,

"the tunnel is effectively owned by the French and British Governments and we operate under their regime".

Why did the Government fail to insist upon this measure?

My Lords, I am not familiar with the issue that the noble Lord raises. I need to look into it and come back to him, but I should tell him and the House that following the fire in 1996, the Heath and Safety Executive commissioned an independent review of the design of the trains using the tunnel, including the shuttles, which concluded that any risks attached to the design were as low as reasonably practicable. I think that incorporates the point the noble Lord raised, but I shall look into it and come back to him.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that after the first fire in the tunnel, the Health and Safety Commission, which investigated it, made some propositions about how unlikely another fire was? I believe the figure ran into some millions. The fire happened very quickly and was very dangerous. Will the Minister press the safety authorities—I am not asking him to interfere with their independence—to produce an interim report as soon as they can stating the cause and what is most likely to prevent it happening? Railway investigating bodies are notoriously slow in their progression.

My Lords, we will act on any issues as soon as they are brought to our attention. As the noble Lord will know, two pieces of work are being undertaken: first, the safety inquiry looking specifically at the causes of the accident and lessons to be learnt, which is being conducted by the French independent accident investigation body together with the UK Rail Accident Investigation Branch; and, secondly, the work of the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission and its agents on the assessments. Proper processes are in place for taking stock of the issues raised by the fire. We will seek to act immediately on anything brought to our attention.

My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking in his new post to look at the arrangements for searching passengers and vehicles prior to them embarking on trains for the Channel Tunnel and satisfy himself that they are adequate, given the requirements that are insisted upon for airports and air travel in the United Kingdom?

My Lords, we believe that they are adequate, but if the noble Lord has any particular issues he would like to draw to my attention, I would be happy to take them up.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that when we were negotiating the tunnel treaty, the issue of French customs officers carrying guns on British trains and British soil arose—the dangerous material to which the first supplementary question referred—and that the Treasury replied that French customs officers could carry guns on tunnel trains, provided they gave an assurance that they would apply in writing to the chief constable of Kent if they wished to use them?

My Lords, I cannot think of the answer to that question. The noble Lord has better historical knowledge of the negotiation of the Treaty of Canterbury than I do.