LIMESTONE PAVEMENT ORDERS (Hansard, 29 October 1981)

§ Mr. Macfarlane:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This was a subject raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in Committee at some length. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) paid their tribute to the hon. Gentleman. The amendment provides that limestone pavement orders should be made in Scotland by the authorities exercising district planning functions. These are the authorities with day-to-day control over planning matters, including minerals.

§ Mr. Dalyell:
Comments were made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) and myself in Committee about the removal of limestone pavements from areas of Sutherland by Bristol university. Subsequent correspondence has proved that we were not accurate in blaming Bristol university. I wish to make a public 1018 apology to Sir Alec Merrison and his colleagues for the misunderstanding that arose by recalling newspaper reports that turned out to be less than accurate.

§ Sir Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough):
I wish to associate myself with that apology. What we said was wrong. It was being taken down and tested for shellspar. It was not limestone pavement.

§ Mr. Graham:
I should like the Minister to comment on some disturbing news that I have received late in the day. We are discussing a change that has come to us from another place to delete "regional" and insert "district". We are talking about the Countryside Commission. I understand that the commission is to close three of its regional offices—those at Reading, Nottingham and Manchester—and that there is to be a cut of 25 in regional staff.
It is possible, in the light of the apologies that have just been made, that I shall need to apologise later for wrong information. If, however, the information that I have received is correct, how on earth can we begin, on the last day before a Bill becomes an Act, with the news that there may be a review, perhaps by another Department or perhaps arising for some macroeconomic reason? If, in one breath, we are saying laudable things about what we want to achieve and, in the next, denying the diminished staff the resources to carry out the job, that surely makes nonsense of what we are trying to do.

§ Mr. Macfarlane:
I cannot make a detailed comment on the information that the hon. Gentleman has disclosed. It may or may not be accurate. I have no means of being 100 per cent. certain at the moment what are the plans of the Countryside Commission and its regional organisations. In any case, this would not be a matter for my Department. The manner in which agencies such as the Countryside Commission are organised throughout the regions is very much a matter for the commission. I shall nevertheless look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Graham:
With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may speak again.
I listened carefully to the Minister. He said that the way in which the staff was disposed of might not be a matter for him. However, the reason for the way in which staff are disposed of or made redundant can arise directly out of decisions made by the Minister and his colleagues relating to finance. I appreciate that the Minister is unable to debate the matter, but he should riot pass it off as having little or nothing to do with his Department.
I repeat that if the funds to do the job properly are to be dried up or denied that will make it very difficult for people who want to do a good job of work to do so.

§ Mr. Macfarlane:
Perhaps I may correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not refer to the way in which the staff were disposed of. I referred to the way in which the Countryside Commission organised its regional offices throughout the land.