§ Baroness DavidMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government when the result of the inquiry into the Eldon Hill quarry on the Peak National Park will be announced.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale)My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has today written to the parties in the case announcing his decision to dismiss the appeal.
§ Baroness DavidMy Lords, I warmly thank the Minister for that reply, which is very good news. It is odd how answers to letters seem to go out on the day that Questions are put down. Why are there usually such long delays in issuing the results of public inquiries, particularly about limestone quarries, where a great deal of damage can be done while the results are being awaited? It is a year since the inquiry on this quarry was finished.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, the reason the announcement of this decision was deferred—it could have been made last week—was in deference to her and her putting down the Question on the Order Paper.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, there is general laughter, but that statement happens to be true. In answer to the supplementary question asked by the noble Baroness, this was a complex case in which the inquiry ran on and off for four months. The inspector then put a great deal of effort into assessing much complex evidence and presenting it objectively.
Lord HuntMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I too am absolutely delighted that his right honourable friend has reached this conclusion? Is he aware that Eldon Hill Quarry is arguably the most blatant contradiction in all our national parks of the purposes for which the national parks were established and that any extension of that quarry could only have made the problem of restoring it eventually that much more difficult?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleYes, my Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The position is exactly as he has stated. However, I would point out that the planning permission for the original quarry does not expire until September 1997, and so we shall not see overnight the environmental improvements that he wants.
§ Lord MolsonMy Lords, in view of this very welcome decision by the Government may we take it that the present Government stand by the criteria laid down by the late Lord Silkin—Mr. Silkin as he then was—in 1949 that permission for the exploitation of minerals in national parks will not be given unless it is absolutely necessary in the public interest and there is no possible alternative source of supply?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I can tell my noble friend that there has been no deviation from that policy.
§ Baroness NicolMy Lords, can the Minister say whether any effort is being made to persuade contractors not to use high-grade limestone as roadstone?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, the Government have made quite clear that they see roadstone being quarried in those places outside the national parks where such a thing is possible.
§ Baroness NicolMy Lords, that was not quite the question. The question is whether contractors should be dissuaded from using high-grade limestone as roadstone, because that would have beneficial effects on those quarries which produce high-grade limestone.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, the technical specifications of what is used as roadstone, and indeed ballast on railway tracks, is beyond me. If I may, I shall write to the noble Baroness on that point.
§ Lord MolsonMy Lords, this arises out of my noble friend's earlier reply. To use high-quality limestone for roadstone would not satisfy the criterion that no possible alternative source of supply is available.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, high-quality limestone can on occasions be found outside the national parks and so the situation is rather different.