§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidance was given by his Department before July to Eurotunnel as to the merits on environmental grounds of exploration of sites other than Shakespeare cliff for disposal of spoil from the Channel tunnel;
(2) whether (a) Land Use Consultants or (b) any other independent consultants was invited by his Department to make an appraisal of the environmental consultants' report recommending Shakespeare cliff as the site for disposal of spoil from the Channel tunnel.
(3) whether Land Use Consultants were invited by his Department to undertake further studies on the feasibility of spoil disposal at Lappel bank consequent on their report in July indicating that Lappel bank was a preferable spoil disposal site to Shakespeare cliff.
279W
§ Mr. WaldegraveFollowing indentification in the White Paper "The Channel Fixed Link" in February 1986 of spoil disposal as an important environmental issue, the Government welcomed, through the medium of the Kent joint consultative committee, the proposal that a surplus tunnel spoil working group should conduct a thorough examination of potential disposal sites. The working group, which included Eurotunnel, local authority and DOE representatives, short listed a number of alternatives to Shakespeare cliff but in June indicated that it could not complete its work in time for the Commons Select Committee hearing.
In order to assist the Select Committee considering the Channel Tunnel Bill, the Department of the Environment commissioned Land Use Consultants (LUC) to carry out a rapid review of Eurotunnel's proposals for disposal at Shakespeare cliff and of seven alternative sites identified by the working group. In its report, which the Government made available to the Select Committee, LUC recommended that Lappel bank should be
adopted as the preferred alternative location to Shakespeare cliffbut stressed that, in view of the short timescale within which the study was conducted, there were many issues which wouldrequire detailed consideration should the Government decide to consider this option further".The LUC report was received in July and Eurotunnel was asked for a formal response. This response reaffirmed its preference for Shakespeare cliff: but it indicated its willingness to make every effort to modify its proposals to meet the Government's requirement that environmental damage should be minimised.
Having considered very carefully all the available evidence—including the LUC report, Eurotunnel's comprehensive response, and the views of other interested parties the Government concluded that neither Lappel Bank nor any of the other potentially viable "remote" disposal sites offered a clearly preferred alternative to the proposals included in the Bill.
In reaching this conclusion, the Government were satisfied that the information available was sufficient to enable a judgment to be made. They also considered, and informed the Select Committee that they did not consider that further technical studies to evaluate the viability of alternative sites would provide conclusive information pointing to a clear-out decision. In the circumstances, the Government did not require LUC or any other consultants to appraise Eurotunnel's proposals or to undertake further studies of the feasibility of disposal at Lappel Bank.
The decision to endorse disposal of Shakespeare cliff was made on the ground that, taking the project as a whole and recognising the environmental consequences, it remained the solution with the fewest technical and operational problems.
§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was paid to Land Use Consultants by his Department to carry out a survey on alternative spoil disposal sites to Shakespeare cliff as part of the Channel tunnel scheme.
§ Mr. WaldegraveIt is not my Department's practice to reveal the level of fees paid for consultancy work, on the ground of commercial confidentiality.