Sir, - I recently obtained details of vacancies for information assistants at various Yorkshire Dales National Park centres.

The brief job description states, "Ideally you will have a good knowledge of the YDNP, an interest in furthering its objectives and be IT literate in Windows 95 and Microsoft Word 97."

The post holders would "act as front line communicators with the National Park's eight million annual visitors", and "should expect to work shift patterns, which include working alternate weekends".

As someone who may well be interested in such a job I have made further enquiries among past and present occupants of the positions and learned a lot more about it

As well as offering information, advice and assistance to visitors the assistant is responsible for booking them accommodation, both locally and elsewhere in the UK, and selling not only the centres' own merchandise but, from time to time, tickets for such events as the Swaledale Festival.

The amount of cash the assistant handles can run into thousands of pounds a week and he or she is also responsible for cashing up and accounting for any discrepancies.

The job is a key post, being the public face of the YDNP, carrying what seems to me to be a very high degree of responsibility, requiring a wide range of skills and involving weekend and bank holiday working. And the pay offered for this important job - £4.95 per hour!

I am told that the only YDNP employees paid less than this are cleaners. How on earth does the YDNP management justify such an abysmal wage for such an important job? I understand that the annual hours worked mean that the gross annual earnings will be about £5,000, not even a living wage and, for someone with a family, almost certainly making them eligible for tax credits, a form of wage subsidy..

The fact that the great majority of assistants are women seems to suggest that this may be the reason for the low rate of pay, there still being a common belief that women only work for pin money.

Apparently staff turnover is extremely high. Any personnel manager worth their salt would recognise such high turnover as a symptom of a serious problem and be taking steps to identify the problem and remedy it.

On the other hand, someone with a suspicious mind might come to the conclusion that there is within the YDNP a belief that the current farming crisis will ensure a ready supply of farmer's wives so desperate for extra cash that they will work for peanuts. Surely not.

PETER ATKINSON

Park House,

Keld,

Richmond.

Fast work

Sir, - Some satisfaction has been expressed as to the speed with which Mercury bridge, Richmond, was reopened to normal traffic, following the damage to it by flood water in June last year.

The six months' work to restore part of he bridge is to be followed by some months' work yet to complete the restoration of the river banks, which were damaged in order to get heavy plant and machinery to the site. All at a cost of two million pounds.

Perhaps we should compare this achievement with the rebuilding of the Green bridge, Richmond, in 1788. After a severe storm the flood waters of the river Swale damaged the existing bridge to such an extent it was decided to rebuild the bridge.

The ownership of the bridge was equally divided between Richmond Corporation and North Riding County Council, but the two owners could not agree on a contractor to build the whole bridge, so separate tenders were invited by each authority to build half a bridge.

Tenders were accepted by Richmond Corporation for £888 and NRCC for £899 for the work to be done. I suspect there would be much speculation by Richmond folk as to whether the two halves would meet in the middle.

We can see today, however, a very fine stone bridge was built, and completed in about a year, at a cost of £1,787. Considering only hand tools would be used at this time, and with only horse and cart transport available, who should get the bouquet for civil engineering and a job well done?

RON PEACOCK

Richmond Edge,

Richmond.

Action on litter

Sir, - I fully support your two correspondents Ken Walsh and Lionel Twiss (D&S, Feb 9) in deploring the problems with litter generally, and on roadside verges in particular.

The A1 between Scotch Corner and Wetherby is a particularly bad, but by no means unique example. The Scotch Corner roundabout is heavily littered and from here on South, litter is a feature of the roadside verges for over 30 miles and no doubt beyond.

The hedges are festooned with polythene streamers and the lay-bys are ankle deep in rubbish. Whether or not you choose to take up Mr Twiss's suggestion of 'spearheading a campaign' is up to you, but in the short term, it would be very useful if you could identify then publish, contact details of the various authorities responsible for maintaining each category of road.

This would then enable the public to complain directly to those responsible. As this country's litter laws appear to be unenforceable it seems that the best we can do is to lobby for more action and more resources to clean up the mess.

PAUL HAXBY.

Richmond.

l The D&S Times has been told that the relevant district councils are now responsible for cleaning up stretches of major roads which run through their area