HC Deb 21 November 1995 vol 267 cc51-2W
Mr. Chris Davies

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from organisations seeking changes in the requirements for the award of freight facilities grants to enable intermodal schemes to qualify; and if he will make a statement. [534]

Mr. Watts

In principle intermodal schemes qualify for freight facilities grant.

Mr. Davies

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the period of advance notice required for security reasons to be given by terminal operators for the packing of an intermodal unit to be transported from Britain to France(a) by rail and (b) by road and ferry. [536]

Mr. Watts

No notice is required for security reasons for rail freight being shipped by security approved freight forwarders. Railfreight Distribution, currently the only company carrying channel tunnel rail freight, require 20 hours' advance notification in respect of non-security-approved forwarders. There are no security related notice requirements in respect of road traffic travelling on the ferries or through the channel tunnel.

Mr. Davies

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the annual budget allocated for the award of rail freight facilities grants and track access grants since 1992 and the number and value of the grants awarded. [535]

Mr. Watts

The annual budget for rail and inland waterway freight facilities grants is a joint one. In 1992–93, this was £6.571 million and in 1993–94 £3.265 million. From April 1994, the budget included the new track access grant and was £13.3 million for 1994–95. It is currently £14.4 million.

Since 1992, eight rail grants have been awarded with a total value of over £14 million. No track access grants have yet been awarded but several applications are currently under consideration.

Mr. Davies

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the differences in security requirements imposed on the passage of rail freight using the channel tunnel and the Severn tunnel and what are the reasons for these differences; [539]

(2) what assessment he has made of the security risks posed by rail freight passing through (a) the channel tunnel and (b) the Severn tunnel. [546]

Mr. Watts

My Department regulates the security of the channel tunnel under the Channel Tunnel Security Order 1994. The measures imposed on operators are based on the security threat to the installation, as assessed by the Security Service, and the vulnerability of the system. It is not the practice to reveal details of security requirements.

My Department has no comparable responsibilities in relation to the Severn tunnel.

Mr. Davies

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has made to the representations of the railfreight users group regarding the consultation paper on the security aspects of rail groupage issued by his Department's security division; and if he will make a statement. [537]

Mr. Watts

I have responded to the correspondence that I have received from the Alliance for Channel Tunnel Freight, which incorporates the Rail Freight Group, acknowledging its concerns. I have asked officials to look carefully at the alliance's representations, and I understand a very constructive meeting took place between officials and the alliance on 15 November. Discussions are continuing.