§ Ms WalleyTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport which contractor was awarded the contract to clear the protestors involved with the M65 extension; what was the cost of the work undertaken; and whether the contract was subject to competitive tendering. [24403]
§ Mr. WattsThis is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 17 May 1995:
Mr. John Watts has asked me to write in reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, which contractor was awarded the contract to clear the protestors involved with the M65 extension; what was the cost of the work undertaken; and whether the contract was subject to competitive tendering.I assume your question refers to the eviction of protestors from Stanworth Woods on the line of the M65 which took place between 1 and 5 May. This action was entirely the responsibility of the Under-Sheriff of Lancashire. He was accompanied by teams of bailiffs and specialist climbers. The Under-Sheriff directly recruited these teams and there was no involvement by the Highways Agency. 246W The Under-Sheriff will in due course submit a bill to the Treasury Solicitor for the costs he has incurred. The Treasury Solicitor will arrange payment on behalf of the Agency.The main contractor for the scheme is the Alfred McAlpine-AMEC joint venture. They employ Group 4 Total Security as a security sub-contractor. In accordance with the Agency's current requirements Group 4 were appointed after quotations were obtained from three security firms. During the eviction process Group 4 guards were present, but took no part in the actual evictions. Their job was merely to keep the site secure after the protestors had been evicted. The cost to the Agency of security and other contractor expenses for the week (but excluding the Under-Sheriff's costs) is estimated at some £100,000.