Stonehenge
2:30 pm

Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to meet under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings. I wish you a very happy Christmas and a good new year.

At dawn on Saturday, if the weather is clement, I will join a select group of enthusiasts at Stonehenge to witness the first sunrise after the winter solstice. It is a far more significant occasion than the summer solstice. Our ancestors calculated the exact date of the year's turn, when they could look forward to longer days and the green shoots of spring, and laid out Stonehenge accordingly.

Stonehenge was inscribed as a world heritage site in 1986, and the UNESCO-approved management plan was published in April 2000. The stones are instantly recognisable, and are a worldwide symbol of our ancient heritage. They were shaped and erected more than 3,000 years ago, and their lintels, unique jointing and perfect geometry make Stonehenge the most sophisticated stone circle in the world. But it is more than just stones. Within the 2,600-hectare site are more than 400 scheduled ancient monuments in a ceremonial landscape that includes the avenue, the cursus and nearby Woodhenge. Just to the east lies Durrington Walls, where the people who built Stonehenge lived in a village of hundreds of houses that featured a stone-surfaced avenue. The secrets of Durrington Walls have only recently started to be revealed.

Members of Parliament must consider the national interest as well as their constituency interests. Similarly, the Government have a duty to consider the implications of their national decisions for local communities. In November 1995, the planning conference on Stonehenge and the A303 resulted in 16 resolutions and a remarkable consensus among the representatives who attended. Sadly, that national and local consensus has slipped. Last week, a local survey by Vision News, Salisbury's online TV station, found that most people disagreed that the Government were right to cancel the Stonehenge A303 road project and tunnel. In fact, only one person who was interviewed favoured cancelling it.

That surprised me. Despite some triumphalism from those who oppose the tunnel project, most people just want something to be done to minimise the negative impact of traffic congestion on their daily lives. They are proud of Stonehenge, but they mind more about getting to work and home again across the barrier of the choked A303. It is outrageous that the Government have abandoned my constituents in Winterbourne Stoke. That village and Chicklade to the west are now the only communities between London and the west of England without a bypass.

If the A344 is closed, traffic will double on the A360 between Airman's Corner and Longbarrow roundabout and increase by a third on the A303 past the stones. Unless my constituents in Orcheston, Tilshead and Shrewton are served by a new junction at Airman's Corner and an A303 underpass at Longbarrow, their councillors will not agree to the closure of the A344. That agreement is essential to planning permission. Objective 11 of the management plan requires the A344 and A303 to be removed or screened. Interestingly, support is growing for the planting of trees along both roads, within the world heritage site. Will the Stonehenge project board please consider that?

The Department for Transport has just saved itself more than £500 million and announced that any new money for even minor road improvements must come from the meagre south-west regional road budget. That is totally unacceptable. Why should people in Devon and Cornwall lose their road improvements to pay for the wreckage of a national road project that was funded from the Department for Transport's budget until 6 December?

Meanwhile, my constituents in Larkhill, Bulford, Durrington and Amesbury will be plagued by rat-running to avoid the gridlock past the stones. There is increasing evidence of rat-running further south—down the A338 along the Bourne valley to Salisbury and then along the A30 through the Nadder valley to Hindon, bypassing the entire Stonehenge section of the A303.

Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Defence; Westbury, Conservative)

My hon. Friend knows that I have a particular interest in the village of Chitterne. I should be grateful if he added it to his list of villages likely to suffer from increased rat-running, particularly with the advent of satnav. On a more positive note, will he commend the Ordnance Survey, which will now inform those who make satnav instruments, for consulting with local government to determine preferred routes and freight routes? Does he agree that that cannot come soon enough? It will prevent vehicles from clogging up villages, often getting stuck down lanes where they have no business being.

Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

My hon. Friend and neighbour knows that Chitterne and many of our villages are plagued by satnav lost sheep. Lorries from all over Europe regularly get stuck on completely inappropriate roads signed on satnav as the best way to get from A to B. I have pursued the matter with the Department for Transport during the past 18 months or so, but the Department can do precious little about it—it requires Europe-wide action. The real problem is that whatever satnav might say, a driver confronted with a road must rely on signs. If a sign says that the road is narrow, has a weight limit or other restriction or is otherwise inappropriate—and if the driver can read English—it will work, but there is nothing physically to prevent truck drivers from driving down an inappropriate road and getting stuck. It is a massive problem, and we have yet to come up with a solution. How right he is to draw attention to it.

Will the Government please consider afresh the potential in the long term for tolling, or shadow tolling, a major road improvement for the strategic A303 route? I have raised the point before. Of course I do not mean toll booths either side of Stonehenge; smart cards or even global positioning system technology will soon be equal to the challenge. Design, build, finance and operate contracts, with shadow tolling, are well tried in this country and could be an attractive option for the medium to long term.

In April 1986, UNESCO said that the A344 past the stones must be rerouted. In November 1986, the UNESCO world heritage committee

"noted with satisfaction the assurances"

that the closure was being seriously considered. In April 2002, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport told UNESCO that planning consent for the new visitor centre would be submitted, and the highways consent procedure for the tunnel initiated, in December. In 2003, UNESCO welcomed the decision to construct a bored tunnel and asked for a report by 1 February 2004, which DCMS provided, albeit on 28 May 2004. UNESCO then asked for another report by 1 February 2005, which did not come. In summer 2005, it asked for an updated report by 1 February 2007. Meanwhile, in 2006, it noted that DCMS had provided no time frame for the Stonehenge project and that management was weak.

In July this year, the world heritage committee received a brief report full of good intentions that said how difficult it all was. Now the Government are washing their hands of Stonehenge and leaving it to the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to pick up the pieces. I do not doubt her good intentions and determination. She needs all the support that she can get.

David Wright (PPS (Rt Hon Jane Kennedy, Financial Secretary), HM Treasury; Telford, Labour)

I am here as the chairman of the all-party group on world heritage sites to tell the hon. Gentleman that this is in many senses a cross-party issue. The site is of major significance not just in the UK but throughout the world. The all-party group, as he knows, is keen to see the matter resolved. The visitor centre is not up to standard for the previous century, let alone the future. I want the group to support his efforts to ensure a settlement on the road network in his constituency. I congratulate him on securing this debate.

Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I salute him for the work that he does for the all-party group on world heritage sites, of which I am an assiduous attender. I also welcome the support that the group, which draws its membership from both Houses and from a wide range of support in the world of culture and heritage, has already given to the Stonehenge project.

I refer to the Government because I believe that this 21-year-old saga represents a systemic failure in the machinery of government. Successive Culture Secretaries have not been powerful enough to obtain Cabinet agreement; and Transport Secretaries have always found it easier to give greater priority to other roads. I understand that the £500 million in this case will go instead to widening the M25. Four Prime Ministers have failed to acknowledge the importance of our national heritage to our culture needs, let alone to our tourism and transport needs. Only the Treasury has won every round.

In February 2008, the Minister of State must report progress to UNESCO, following the Government's decision to abandon the road and the proposed visitor centre. At its July meeting, the world heritage committee will

"fully examine the implication of their decision for the value and integrity of Stonehenge as a World Heritage property".

Will the Minister confirm that time scale, and say whether she expects to submit a revised management plan to UNESCO in January 2009?

The Government are already in trouble, because they have failed to restrain the encroachment of new tall buildings on the world heritage sites here at Westminster and down the river at the Tower of London. Only last month, UNESCO threatened the delisting of the Dresden Elbe valley site because the landscape would be degraded by a new bridge. It would indeed be a national humiliation if Stonehenge were to be put on the endangered list. I do not think that it will happen.

I congratulate the Minister, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Harris, for calling an emergency meeting on 10 December of the new Stonehenge project board, in order to agree terms of reference, to consider options for the future, and to decide the key issues and what can now be delivered. By all accounts, it was an eclectic gathering of the main stakeholders in the south-west of England. Crucially, however, the local planning authority was not represented. That caused consternation. Will the Minister confirm whether Salisbury district council was invited to the meeting? If it was, I consider it a dereliction of duty that not one councillor or council officer could be found to attend that meeting.

Looking forward, will the Minister assure us that the starting point for a new beginning must be the existing management plan, revised to take account of the new situation? Will she retain the three long-term objectives—objectives 1, 2 and 3? They are the endorsement of the management plan; the improvement of the management and conservation of the cultural landscape; and the interpretation of the universal value of the whole world heritage site. Will she continue to promote public enjoyment, education and research at Stonehenge?

Under the terms of objective 14 of the plan, and as a gesture of good intent to UNESCO, will the Minister consider adding to the site the unique Parsonage Down national nature reserve and Yarnbury castle, which lie to the west of the stones? I believe that they should have been included from the start.

Will the Minister also say how much money the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will contribute to the new visitor centre? The right hon. Lady has done so well to pledge that the Government will have a new centre up and running by 2012. Such a project on such a tight time scale must be primed with the help of the taxpayer. English Heritage is already in discussion with the Heritage Lottery Fund, which suddenly has more than £20 million to spend on something else—the Olympics?—following the decision not to proceed with the visitor centre. Will the Minister assure us that her Department will give 100 per cent. backing to a lottery bid by English Heritage?

Objective 18 of the management plan states that a new world-class visitor centre should be secured to act as a gateway to Stonehenge, to improve the visitor experience and to encourage the dispersal of visitors around the entire world heritage site. Will the Minister maintain that objective? I said in the House last week that something cheap and cheerful would not do. What we are embarking on is a semi-permanent solution that is likely to last for at least 20 years, until a new strategic plan can be agreed. It must be a visitor centre of high quality, innovation and vision.

May I recommend that all those involved revisit the Fargo North scheme, published in April 1998? There are well-reasoned arguments for a centre just north of the A344 and west of Fargo plantation. That would be a good site. Much of the transport planning, including designs for new road junctions, has been done. That could considerably shorten the time scale necessary for design work. If the 1998 proposal could be updated to include a grade-separated junction at the Long Barrow junction of the A303 and the A360, that might well avoid a public planning inquiry and would save at least a year.

UNESCO has always been critical of facilities for interpretation and explanation, and so have I. However, I at least had the advantage during my childhood in Salisbury of spending many hours at the stones and at the Salisbury and South Wiltshire museum, which has the best Stonehenge collection in the country. Under its new chairman and director, the museum is planning a new "Stonehenge Experience". Given the circumstances that we now face, DCMS and English Heritage have a golden opportunity to join forces with the museum—the Minister visited it with me in September—to create a world-class exhibition and learning experience. It would be in service within two years, well ahead of any possible delivery at Stonehenge—and it would be only a stone's throw away. It would also represent good value for money, at about £1.5 million.

Already, thousands of people combine visits to Stonehenge with trips to the English Heritage site at Old Sarum and Salisbury cathedral. In 2008, our cathedral celebrates its 750th anniversary, and there will be many new reasons for people to combine visits to the sites—and also to visit local National Trust properties, including Mompesson house. There is also early discussion about the nomination of our incomparable Salisbury cathedral close as a future world heritage site.

Now is the time for us all to work together to ensure that Stonehenge becomes more than a tourist destination—that it becomes a wonderful experience for all who marvel at mankind's ancient footprint on our land and who yearn to understand more of our humanity. Christmas is upon us. All of us—even, dare I say it, English Heritage and the National Trust—should find a large bunch of mistletoe and pledge undying friendship in the interests of Stonehenge.

David Wright (PPS (Rt Hon Jane Kennedy, Financial Secretary), HM Treasury; Telford, Labour)

I congratulate Robert Key on securing this important debate. He says that he will be at Stonehenge on Saturday. I hope that he will excuse me for not joining him, as it is my birthday; nevertheless, I wish him all the best.

I have particularly fond memories of Stonehenge. My family regularly visited the site on our way to the south coast for our summer holidays. The management of the stones has changed somewhat over the years. We used to have access to them—we could sit on them and wander around them. I have a photograph in my family album of me in a hideous 1970s T-shirt sitting on one of the stones, with my grandfather sitting next to me smoking a Woodbine. I still like to visit Stonehenge, but the Woodbines did for granddad. I am fond of the site and I try to visit it whenever I pass by, as it brings back important family memories.

I am chairman of the all-party group on world heritage sites. It is, I believe, one of the most successful groups in Parliament, with a large attendance. The Minister is to visit the group early in the new year, and I am sure that she will be asked a number of questions about Stonehenge and the management of the site. I speak today largely because the subject is an all-party one and it is important to our nation that we get it right. Stonehenge is one of the United Kingdom's most significant sites. Clearly, all world heritage sites are important, but Stonehenge is recognised across the world as being extremely significant.

The hon. Gentleman said that Stonehenge sits in a landscape. World heritage sites are now considered as part of a wider landscape. For the older sites, it was an iconic feature within the landscape that was designated, but UNESCO and all involved in world heritage now take the view that one has to place sites such as Stonehenge within the landscape setting. That is why this debate is so important. The management of traffic around the site is of major importance, but is not working effectively. Someone driving past Stonehenge will see a lot of people trying to glimpse the stones as they pass by. I do not know how many accidents are caused as a result, but clearly the framework for traffic management is not right.

Sadly, this debate has been ongoing since 1995, and the reports published are stacking up. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise, on behalf of his constituents, the issue of vehicle management, but this is important to the whole nation, so we need to get it right. As he mentioned, a number of other world heritage sites are also under threat. There is a significant debate about the Tower of London, about the world heritage site in which we sit today, and about the impact of tall buildings. UNESCO will wish to take a view on the continuing volume of traffic passing Stonehenge and how it impacts on the way in which people can look at, study and enjoy the wider landscape.

The site is of world significance, but the visitors' centre is not up to scratch. In fact, it is the same one that I visited while wearing that pretty horrible 1970s T-shirt. The centre has not stood the test of time. It might function, but one would imagine that such an important feature of the landscape required a visitors' centre that did it credit with, for example, a multi-media presentation of the site and attempts to promote an understanding of the wider landscape. I hope that we will get a commitment from the Minister to major steps forward in traffic management and a visitors' centre.

It is particularly important that we make progress before 2012. The all-party world heritage sites group wants to pursue the concept of "world heritage, world games", so that people visiting the UK for the Olympic games will be encouraged to visit world heritage sites—not just Stonehenge, but other sites such as Ironbridge gorge, in my constituency. We want people to visit not just London, but all our major world heritage sites. There could be a fantastic link between the world games and world heritage sites.

It is crucial, however, that Stonehenge has a better-quality visitors' centre. Many people will want to visit Stonehenge when they come to the London Olympics, because in their home countries they have seen incredible images of that feature of our landscape. However, it is important to focus on the management plans and on delivering them. Plans for all world heritage sites take considerable time to develop, and the organisations involved in putting them together are very proud of them—they are of the plan for Ironbridge gorge, and I am sure that they are of the Stonehenge one as well. We must hold faith with the organisations, and the Government, who have contributed to the development of those plans. They should be seen as the main structure for future delivery on traffic and visitor plans around Stonehenge and the surrounding landscape.

In conclusion, I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I stress to the Minister that this matter is important to all parties in the House and all people in this nation.

Dan Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I apologise if I sniff and cough my way through my contribution. One connection that I might have with those who built Stonehenge, other than a love of the stones themselves, is the fact that I am suffering from a common cold, which no doubt they experienced during its construction.

I pay tribute to Robert Key for introducing this important debate at this crucial time. Clearly he has a constituency interest, but I am sure that it has been demonstrated to all hon. Members that his interest goes far beyond that—he has a personal connection to the site having grown up in the area. He spoke about the long identification of Stonehenge as a world heritage site. Happily we now have many more in this country, but this country's performance will be assessed according to how we approach our more major and long-standing commitments, such as that to Stonehenge.

The hon. Gentleman addressed the wider historical landscape and the dangers of simplistic solutions, such as closing the junction on the A344, in isolation, which would not resolve the problems facing the landscape and the site itself, but would have consequences for congestion on the A303 and present problems for his constituents and those seeking to explore and enjoy the wider south-west. He also mentioned shadow tolling, which shows that he has a positive contribution to make and is not merely criticising the Government. He should be congratulated on taking a constructive approach.

The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of the visitors' centre, as did David Wright. However, although progress on the visitors' centre would be welcome, we must consider how people would get there, otherwise we could create a huge problem. We cannot encourage greater numbers of people to experience what is on offer without affording them proper access. The hon. Member for Salisbury also spoke of the connection with the supporting heritage and tourist facilities in Salisbury and elsewhere, and about the importance of finding the right approach for the benefit of the wider economy and Stonehenge itself.

The hon. Member for Telford spoke about the long-standing support of the all-party world heritage sites group for Stonehenge, and I pay tribute to the work of his group. He raised some crucial points about the landscape and maintaining the stones' legacy, which is why we all support the scheme on which sadly the Government recently turned their backs. It presented an opportunity to reunite some of the features of the landscape. He spoke also about the link with the 2012 games and the opportunity to present the heritage of our country at its very best. That deadline looms for all sorts of projects. I hope that the Minister will refer to that in her remarks.

We might be having this debate during the last full year in which Stonehenge enjoys and retains unquestioned UNESCO world heritage status, as has been mentioned. After years of failing Stonehenge, Ministers in the Department for Transport seem to have settled on failure as their chosen course of action. Stonehenge is arguably the United Kingdom's single most important historical monument, but sadly the Government's recent decision puts the UNESCO world heritage status at risk. The monument is at risk from further damage from growing volumes of traffic. UNESCO accorded Stonehenge its world heritage status on the condition that nearby roads be examined and progress be made on protecting the site.

Transport Ministers have consistently let down the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by underestimating the importance of the scheme. Indeed, the DFT sees the A303 improvements as a regional scheme only, which demonstrates its indifference to Stonehenge's national and international significance. I speak from the heart as a Member for a south-west constituency where there are other projects. Had the scheme gone ahead, it would have gobbled up south-west funding for many years to come. Trying to brush the scheme off as regional would, therefore, have had deleterious effects on important safety schemes, such as the A30 improvement between Temple and Higher Carblake in north Cornwall.

Now that a decision has finally been made, we need to look to the future. The Minister must have asked herself, "What am I going to do now?" She has said that she still wants to resolve this matter, so what are her plans for the current Stonehenge visitors' centre and what is the future for the ambitious plans previously connected with the A303 changes and the centre? What is her, and her Department's, view of the proposed closure of the A303-A344 junction? Local Members are said to be concerned about further congestion in that area, and hon. Members have raised that concern in this debate. What, on balance, does she believe should be done?

As we have heard, UNESCO will meet next year to discuss Stonehenge's status. How will the Minister convince UNESCO to give the Government the benefit of the doubt? She will need to act early to influence the UNESCO world heritage centre's report to the world heritage committee in July. Images of Stonehenge were used as part of the successful bid for the 2012 Olympics, and improvements to the site were anticipated to be in place by then. It is a cruel irony that a British site given such credence by the International Olympic Committee should be given so little priority by the British Government themselves.

Before the DFT made its decision, how many visitors did the Minister anticipate visiting Stonehenge in 2012? By contrast, how many does she think will now get there? Indeed, what does she anticipate to be the wider implications for tourism in the wider south-west of the DFT's decision? Stonehenge is a magnet for the region, but the A303 is also a major artery to the wider south-west, and the Government have chosen to undermine one and block the other. What was the outcome of the Stonehenge programme board meeting on 10 December, to which the hon. Member for Salisbury referred? Does the Minister feel that her colleagues at the DFT recognised the importance of Stonehenge to the United Kingdom and beyond? Do her colleagues in the DFT, in the Ministry of Defence, which could be a vital partner in any scheme elsewhere in the area, and, crucially, in the Treasury share her resolve to get the issue right?

Have Treasury officials been asked to compare the relative worth of capital expenditure on protecting a site of such unique status as Stonehenge with, for example, other high-profile Government schemes? Have DFT officials been asked to compare the increased costs of going ahead with the Stonehenge scheme with other schemes that have suffered serious delay? It has been reported that the costs are much higher than originally anticipated, but in the meantime the costs of most road schemes have also escalated due to rising labour costs. Should not the DFT have anticipated that likely increase in cost when it was budgeting?

After a decade of dithering, there remain countless questions for the Government. It is almost 18 years since the Public Accounts Committee said that the setting around Stonehenge was "a national disgrace", but we seem to have moved no further forward. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Minister's recent support for Stonehenge, but we need to know that she is not whistling in the inter-departmental wind. She has to convince not only this House, but UNESCO. We all agree that for Stonehenge to lose its status would be a tragedy. I hope we can agree that the south-west as a whole needs the revenue it receives from tourism, and that the Government's decisions on Stonehenge will have serious effects on it, too.

The Government have spent years failing to decide, and now they have decided to do nothing. Stonehenge may be famous for its longevity, but it cannot wait for action for ever.

Tobias Ellwood (Shadow Minister, Culture, Media & Sport; Bournemouth East, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to participate in this important and timely debate. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend Robert Key on accumulating so much knowledge over the 10 years that he has pursued the matter. His constituents can be rightly proud of the way in which he has stood up for and pioneered Stonehenge, helping to remind us that the issue is about not only Stonehenge and the stones themselves, but Durrington Walls, Woodhenge and the surrounding area. He has shown a commitment and dedication that I hope the Government will honour as we move forward and consider another proposal, following their announcement. Indeed, the announcement on 6 December has led us to the debate today.

I need not remind the Chamber that after 10 years of studies, at a cost of £23 million, all plans, details, ideas and improvements concerning Stonehenge have been thrown out. As we have heard, that is a massive blow to the area and for many people who simply want a solution. We are back to square one. The way in which the announcement was made was a surprise. It was slipped out in a written statement, and it was only thanks to Mr. Speaker agreeing to an urgent question that we forced a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to answer it. Unfortunately, it is a reflection of the importance that the Government grant to tourism that instead of the Secretary of State for Transport responding to that question, she simply left a junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Harris, to stand up to the wrath of the questioners and justify the decision.

Under the Government, the tourism deficit—the amount that we spend abroad compared with inbound spending—has changed significantly since 1997. It was £4 billion then; it is £18 billion now, which shows that we spend far more money abroad than we are able to attract from visitors to the United Kingdom. Tourism is a competitive international market, but Britain is losing out to competition from abroad, and more Britons than ever before are choosing to holiday abroad. We do not enjoy the increases in inbound tourism that our competitors enjoy.

It was interesting to see a reply to a question that we tabled last week, in which the Government acknowledged that the percentage of tourists who come to the UK was 3.9 per cent. in 1997, but down to 3.6 per cent. last year. We do not benefit from the increases in the number of flights and in people's disposable income, because we do not attract visitors to the UK. That is reflected in the status of Stonehenge, and unless we harness the visitor potential of such attractions, we will continue to suffer.

I shall recap the history of the issue. It goes back to 1989 when the then Government, under their roads programme, first considered improving the A303. More than 50 possible routes were considered prior to public consultation, involving the Highways Agency and a huge planning conference in 1995, at which it was recommended that only one acceptable scheme had been put forward—a tunnel, 4 km long, at an estimated cost of £300 million. The then Government considered it unaffordable and withdrew the scheme from the roads programme in November 1996.

In July 1998, the new Government identified a new A303 scheme, which was in their targeted programme of improvements. It included a 2.1 km tunnel, a bypass of Winterbourne Stoke, a two-level junction at Countess roundabout and a new junction arrangement at Longbarrow crossroads. There was then a public inquiry, which concluded in May 2004, and the inspector recommended a new dual carriageway be built along with the bored tunnel. However, the costs had increased significantly, and the Government, concerned about the costs, decided to review the entire process. Consultation was held in 2006, leading us to the announcement on 6 December in which all plans and ideas were thrown out. So we are now back to the drawing board.

I visited Stonehenge the weekend before last. It was a miserable day weather-wise, with appalling rain, but it was stunning to see the car park almost full. Coachloads of visitors wanted to walk around and explore the grounds, and the gift shop was full. What was sad, however, was the state of the visitor facilities, which have been referred to already. They are third-rate, prefab construction units that have no place on such a wonderful site as Stonehenge. It is strange to have such an archaic and temporary outfit supporting something that has been around for so long. That is the irony: a heritage site that has existed for thousands of years is supported by such inadequate facilities that they could not last a decade.

I left with a brochure that the very friendly staff gave to me. On the back page, it says:

"Plans for the future. Your future visits to Stonehenge will be very different from your experience today. Major plans are being prepared to place Stonehenge in a grassland setting, free it from roads and traffic noise and provide world-class visitor facilities. This will improve your enjoyment and understanding of the whole World Heritage site."

Clearly, the brochure is now out of date, so perhaps the Government might be brave enough to add a different line, saying, "We apologise for the delay in improving the visitor facilities and infrastructure around Stonehenge. Your patience in waiting another 10 years before a new plan is announced is much appreciated."

I am a little cynical, but I fear that I echo many concerns of people throughout the country who support the site and wonder why on earth it is taking so long to improve what might arguably be described as our No. 1 outdoor heritage attraction. As I said at the Dispatch Box last week:

"Stonehenge is a first-rate heritage site with second-rate facilities supported by a third-rate tourism policy."—[Hansard, 10 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 13.]

I should acknowledge straight away, however, that the Minister has only recently inherited the brief and is not responsible for the tourism policy that the Department introduced before the summer. None the less, she must accept that she now carries the burden of responsibility and will therefore feel the wrath of those on all sides of this issue, although I hope that she understands that it is directed at the issues themselves, not at her personally.

Stonehenge is a wonderful site, but we would not expect to find temporary facilities at similar places, such as the temple of Artemis, the pyramids of Giza or even the Grand Canyon. At such places, people are continually looking at ways to market the attractions and improve what is on offer, but in a manner that protects the attractions themselves. If we are to celebrate our history and heritage—whether man-made or natural—we must provide the necessary infrastructure to both market and protect attractions for future generations. Doing nothing is a dereliction of duty and an insult to heritage, but I am afraid that that is exactly what the Government are doing.

It is interesting to think about when the Government made their announcement, because it came out in a week when we had an awful lot of bad news from them. We heard about the hard drive lost by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which contained millions of details, and about the discs lost by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which contained 25 million people's records. When I heard that the money was not available for Stonehenge, part of me thought that the Government had perhaps lost the cheque, but I hope that that is not the case.

As we have heard, we are talking about not only tourism, but transport. I live in Bournemouth and I am fully aware of the importance of upgrading the A303. The road is a key arterial route into the south-west, and it is critical that such a strategic pipeline receives the attention that it deserves. We also heard about the number of accidents that happen on the road, but the issue has been thrown out with the bathwater, and we now hear that the South West of England Regional Development Agency will be expected to pay for any improvements in that respect. I would be grateful if the Minister spelled out in a little more detail whether there are any additional funds that the RDA might be able to use. Placing such a burden on the RDA would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, mean denying the south-west other transport improvements. Many areas will not benefit from the improvements to the A303, so placing the burden of paying for them on the whole south-west would be very unfair, particularly considering that the Government were committed to making those improvements for so long.

As has been said, the Department for Transport had the final say on this issue. I would be curious to hear what discussions the Minister, or indeed the Secretary of State, had with the Department and whether she failed to persuade it to take a different approach. Sadly, such problems reflect the way in which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport often plays second fiddle to other Departments, which often dole out legislation that has a massive impact on DCMS areas. For example, the cost of visas has been doubled, bed and breakfasts are now affected by red tape and air passenger duty has been increased. All those things happened almost as if the DCMS had not been consulted. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister said what efforts she is making to ensure that tourism is pushed up the agenda.

Such decisions are not helped by Treasury pressure to cut heritage and tourism budgets, which is a bizarre attitude, given that we should be marketing Britain in the lead-up to the Olympics. Organisations such as VisitBritain promote Britain abroad and encourage visitors to see attractions such as Stonehenge, so why did the DCMS decide to cut VisitBritain's budget by £18 million over three years? What links all these issues, I suspect, is the fact that the Treasury has the final say, and the voice of tourism gets lost.

Such is the anger over this issue that the Tourism Alliance, a hugely influential body that links many of the voices in the tourism industry, accused the Government of

"grossly misunderstanding and mismanaging the UK's tourism sector".

Those are damaging words, considering that the alliance is the very body that benefits from support and guides the tourist industry in the UK. The alliance had a crisis meeting with the Minister, and I would be grateful to hear what it asked her to do. There has been an absence of leadership on tourism, and the Tourism Alliance has recently launched its "Take Tourism Seriously" campaign, which urges the Prime Minister to reconsider what the Government are doing with Britain's fifth-largest industry, which lacks a robust voice in the Government.

We must recognise the appetite for heritage. I think that the Minister has visited the British Museum exhibition on the terracotta army from China's Xi'an area. The exhibition has been a huge success and provides evidence that there is a massive appetite in the UK for heritage, but that appetite will be denied if we do not explore and take advantage of our own heritage.

I cannot finish without mentioning the concern about the UN's world heritage committee, which is seriously considering removing Stonehenge's world heritage status. That would have a devastating impact on the area, and I would be curious to hear the Minister comment on what discussions she has had on the issue. The committee has certainly voiced concerns about the visitors' centre and about the infrastructure being woefully under par, and it has said that improvements are needed as soon as possible.

I have a number of other questions for the Minister. What feedback did she have from interested parties following the decision that was made on 6 December? The Government say that they are now looking at new options. What are those options and what timetable—however vague—is in place? Will she report back to Parliament in six months on the progress that has been made on this critical issue?

Will the Minister also comment on her meeting on 10 December with the new Stonehenge board? What was decided? Was the local planning authority invited? When will the next meeting take place? Was Salisbury district council invited? It is a Liberal Democrat-controlled council, but I gather that it did not turn up. Will the Minister confirm whether that was indeed the case?

The Minister has inherited a difficult brief. It is said that Stonehenge is most impressive at sunrise, with beams of light reflecting on the sarsen stones, but thanks to the Government's poor stewardship, and the mist of confusion that now hangs over the future, I fear that although the stones themselves will continue to defy time, the sun will set on the Government before a plan worthy of this ancient and historic landmark is brought forward.

Margaret Hodge (Minister of State (Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Barking, Labour)

Season's greetings to you, Mr. Cummings, on the last day of our debates and happy birthday to my hon. Friend David Wright. Like others, I congratulate Robert Key on securing this important debate, even if it is being held on the last day before the recess.

The hon. Gentleman is an expert on Stonehenge. Not only is he the area's representative, but he has had ministerial responsibility for transport and culture at different points in his career. In both roles, he probably grappled with many of the difficult issues that face me today as I try to find a way forward.

I endorse my hon. Friend's suggestion that it is all too easy to score political points on this complex issue, but I hope that we will not try to do so. It is in all our interests to find a solution of sufficient substance, because that is what is warranted by this magnificent historical site, and we can best reach such a solution by working together.

The problem before us has not been around for just the past 10 years; sadly, it has been around for a generation. When I went to visit Stonehenge with the hon. Member for Salisbury in September I had not been there for many years. When one goes back one realises what a mistake we made putting up a visitor centre of that quality in that place—presumably in the '60s. There are other buildings around of that era, and I am sure that we would never make such a mistake again—as long as English Heritage does not go and list it, and create further difficulties.

Stonehenge is of international importance. We share that view across the Chamber. It is one of our most iconic sites, and has fascinated people across millenniums. We probably will never know—that is its fascination—why our ancestors built the structure 5,000 years ago, and went on building and changing it over the two millennia that followed its original construction. It is not just the stones that are important. As hon. Members have said, there is the cursus just north of the stones, which I saw on my visit: two grass banks 100 m apart, stretching nearly 3 km. They are also an enigma. On the ridges surrounding the stones are burial mounds, which were built more than 1,000 years after the stones were erected. The landscape all around Stonehenge continues to reveal wonderful new archaeological finds. In September, I met a team of archaeologists who work, they told me, every year at Durrington Walls.

The Stonehenge landscape includes sites of special scientific interest, and a major objective of the management plan—which has to a considerable extent been achieved, with the help of the countryside stewardship scheme and its successors—has been the reversion of that core area of the world heritage site from arable to traditional chalk grassland. It is now home to the stone curlew, a rare, red-listed visitor to our isles—although I did not see one. Of course, Stonehenge is also the place where druids and pagans celebrate the solstice.

Stonehenge, as Mr. Ellwood drew to the House's attention, is a hugely important tourist destination. Every year it attracts about 875,000 visitors, and another 23,000 go to the solstices and equinoxes. The income for the area is about £5 million. The hon. Gentleman opposes our policies for tourism, but I am perfectly happy, if he wants to call a debate, to justify our decisions. It is precisely because we want to invest in what tourists experience when they come to the UK that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has used the budget allocated to it in the comprehensive spending review as it has. We have deliberately put more money into heritage, at the expense—to a slight extent—of the money that we invest in marketing.

We have done that not so much for the benefit of Stonehenge as a specific site; rather, for the first time in a long while English Heritage is getting more money, and it is the first time we have ever set up a budget that focuses specifically on the heritage of our seaside resorts. Some of our seaside resorts have done extremely well in the past 20 or 25 years, but others have suffered. Yet they all have within them little heritage jewels, and if we can use those, with a little investment, as a catalyst to regenerate those areas for tourism, that will be money well spent by Government—proper investment that will grow our tourism.

At the same time, it would be dilatory of us not to ask VisitBritain to modernise the way in which it markets the UK—including its use of office infrastructure and new methods of communication. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's refusal to support us in that, I attended last week a meeting of the VisitBritain board, which could have been difficult, given that its budget is being cut in the coming period. However, all the people at the table, including representatives of the devolved Administrations, welcomed what we had done, because it energised them into strategically rethinking, in a way that has not happened before, how best to use the £350 million—including the hon. Gentleman's money and mine—in tourism support to market our country.

Tobias Ellwood (Shadow Minister, Culture, Media & Sport; Bournemouth East, Conservative)

We are mixing numbers up. The overall headline figure for heritage funding has dropped from £461 million in 1997-98 to £231 million in 2006-07. It might have increased slightly from last year, but overall there has been a net decrease. The Minister mentions VisitBritain, but if she cares to look at its website, Christopher Rodrigues, the chief executive, is said to have expressed

"real disappointment at the overall settlement level, particularly following ten years of static funding and the most challenging summer for tourism since 2001."

The Minister is aware that funding for VisitBritain has remained about £35 million for the past 10 years. It has not changed—excluding the running costs of about £15 million—but this time the Government have decided to reduce that amount by £18 million in the next three years.

John Cummings (Easington, Labour)

Order. Interventions must be brief and to the point.

Margaret Hodge (Minister of State (Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Barking, Labour)

That intervention was full of selective statistics, and it is not the real issue for debate. If the hon. Gentleman had spent more time understanding the challenges that we face at Stonehenge he might have focused his contribution on that. I feel that I have to respond to what he said, however.

First, the hon. Gentleman was selective in his figures on heritage investment, because he did not include the money that has gone through the Heritage Lottery Fund. Secondly, it is not only VisitBritain that markets Britain. The regional development agencies have had responsibility since 2003; the devolved Administrations have responsibility as well. One of the purposes of the review is to make sure that we eliminate duplication and use the resources—I repeat that £350 million of support for tourism is coming from the taxpayer's and council tax payer's purse—to the best effect. I am sure that under Christopher Rodrigues's superb leadership of VisitBritain, the enthusiasm that he and other board members showed last week will result in better marketing of Britain.

Stonehenge is important; I recognise that, and because of it I am investing a lot of time in trying to find a solution for it. I have said that we want the relevant improvements to Stonehenge's traffic management and visitor centre and the environment surrounding that world heritage site to happen by 2012. That gives us a catalyst for action. When visitors come to Britain they tend to come to London. There are a few places outside London that they choose to visit, and Stonehenge is always on that list. If we want the whole UK to capture the benefits of our hosting the Olympics in London in 2012, it is crucial that we get world heritage tourist attractions such as Stonehenge in proper, fit, modern and well-preserved order by that time.

Stonehenge was one of the first UK sites to be inscribed on the world heritage list. That was more than 20 years ago. Not just the stones were inscribed, but also the associated monuments, which are spread over more than 2,000 hectares. Since the signing of the world heritage convention in 1984, we are proud as a country to have attained a total of 27 world heritage sites on the list, which now totals more than 800 sites worldwide. The UK sites differ greatly, ranging from uninhabited islands in the southern oceans, through great prehistoric, Roman and mediaeval monumental buildings, to marvels of Georgian urban architecture and planning and an increasing number of sites that demonstrate the contribution of the UK to industrialisation, which underpins the modern world. The UK is among the top 10 countries for the number of sites inscribed on the world heritage list. I say to the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Bournemouth, East, that we have absolutely no intention of suggesting that Stonehenge should drop off that list.

Inscription on the world heritage list is the highest accolade that can be afforded a place, and it brings international prestige. It also brings international responsibilities, which we take seriously. The world heritage convention brings together countries from all parts of the globe, acting together to safeguard places that are of such outstanding universal value that their protection transcends national boundaries.

In the UK, we are proud of the part that we have played in the movement's success. Until 2005 we were one of the member states elected to sit on the world heritage committee, and since our four-year term of office ended we have continued to work closely with and support the world heritage centre to deal with the development pressures facing some of our sites, which my hon. Friend the Member for Telford mentioned. As part of the heritage protection review, we are taking measures to increase the protection of world heritage sites in England.

In London next month, we will host an international expert meeting, which we hope will help the committee to achieve its goal of increasing the number of sites represented, particularly in developing nations, and recognising advancements in science and technology. We are in the throes of our own world heritage policy review, which will examine how we should nominate our sites best to reflect the world heritage committee's priorities, and we always send experts to participate in international events. I hope that that shows our commitment to the world heritage convention, which will continue and be reflected in how we handle Stonehenge.

As several hon. Members have noted, work to determine a way forward for Stonehenge and address the traffic problems on the A303 has been going on for some time. We also want to see work to improve the landscape environment around Stonehenge, and the improved visitor facilities and interpretation that a number of hon. Members have referred to. The work has been going on too long, and I hope that hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Salisbury, because in the discussions that I have had with him since the summer he has committed himself to helping me achieve what we require—a consensus on the way forward. If we can build that consensus with all the relevant authorities, we will not need long planning inquiries. That is our best opportunity to get improvements made before spring 2012.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend Mr. Harris, with whom I have had conversations since I took this job, outlined the history of the Stonehenge project when he made his statement to the House. It is not a matter of the DCMS playing second fiddle to the Department for Transport or any Department, but we must examine expenditure commitments responsibly across Government.

Considering what has happened over time to the proposal that was on the table for Stonehenge, the decision that was taken last week, sad and frustrating though it was to all of us, was right for the spending priorities of the Government as a whole. The money involved had grown beyond belief, and there were complications once people had started burrowing and examining the site. I think that the chalk underneath was the wrong type, and the site also had a high water table or something like that, which created greater costs. The cost had become intolerable, and it was much better to cut the plan dead so that we could start thinking creatively about alternative solutions, rather than to believe that we could find the necessary moneys. It was not a viable proposition, given competing demands for transport infrastructure. We reluctantly concluded that it was unaffordable, which meant that English Heritage's proposed visitor centre, for which it had got planning permission from Salisbury district council, could no longer proceed. The planning approval was contingent on the A303 road improvements. English Heritage will retain the land that it had intended to use for the visitor centre, close to Countess East, and it will have to review its future use.

Costs have been incurred in the past 10 years, but looking back at the history of the matter, when the previous Secretary of State, Lord Smith, made his announcement as long ago as 1998, Sir Jocelyn Stevens, then chair of English Heritage, said:

"It is now six years since the Public Accounts Committee described the visitor facilities at Stonehenge as 'a national disgrace'".

That takes us back, dare I say it, to previous Administrations. That is why people should not try to score political points on the matter.

We recognise that the decision on the traffic management of Stonehenge will have implications for the whole south-west as well as for local residents. As part of our further work, we are exploring much smaller-scale measures to improve the traffic flow and safety on the relevant section of the A303. Decisions on funding improvements to other sections of the A303 to the west of Stonehenge are a matter for the south-west region, using its resources provided by central Government in the south-west's regional funding allocation for major transport schemes. We have deliberately decentralised that budget, which was the right thing to do so that people can take the most appropriate decisions at a regional level.

Dan Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for making that point on a matter that a number of hon. Members mentioned, but will she concede that some projects—I appreciate that it is difficult to assess them—are not regional in nature?

Margaret Hodge (Minister of State (Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Barking, Labour)

Of course, but my understanding —I am no transport expert—is that the responsibility for determining the road's future is classified as lying with the regional authorities. Interestingly, when the region made its recent determination of allocations and transport priorities, it decided not to allocate funding for improvements to the A303 until about 2014. I have not checked, but that may well have been because it was waiting for central Government's decisions on the tunnel. At the meeting that we had on 10 December, Juliet Williams, who chairs the south-west RDA, said several times that improvements to the road infrastructure were a significant regional priority, so I am pretty confident that the region will revisit how it decides to spend its money.

Tobias Ellwood (Shadow Minister, Culture, Media & Sport; Bournemouth East, Conservative)

I am slightly confused; perhaps the Minister can clarify this point. For the past 10 years, there has been an understanding that the Government would contribute to the transport improvement scheme, but she is now making it very clear that the South West of England Regional Development Agency is responsible. If that is the case and that has been the policy, why did the Government allow people to believe for so long that they were going to contribute significantly to the road improvement scheme?

Margaret Hodge (Minister of State (Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Barking, Labour)

I stress again that I am not a Transport Minister, so I shall not reply to that kind of detailed question. Clearly, the decision was taken earlier that it was a major transport scheme and therefore could not be funded regionally. I said—I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the Official Reportcarefully—that it is possible that there will be small-scale measures to improve traffic flow. The Highways Agency will have some responsibilities in that regard, and I hope that there will be some collaboration with the Highways Agency on anything that it feels it has to do after further study. I hope that that, together with a reprioritisation of the regional transport pot of money by SWERDA and its partners, will lead to a compromise solution that will enable us to move forward.

Hon. Members know that one possibility on the table—the ideal solution, because it would not disturb archaeological sites elsewhere—is to close the relevant part of the A344 and use that site as the basis for creating a visitors centre. However, that solution would require everyone to come to the table, to compromise and to contribute. That is what we will try to achieve with the reconvened board. All that must be subject to consultation in the usual ways. I stress again that consensus will be the only way forward, and that will depend on the county council, the local authority and others. Salisbury district council was invited to the meeting, but it told us that the date clashed with a full meeting of the council and sent its apologies.

Our focus must be on where to go from here. In response to a question asked in the House by the hon. Member for Salisbury on 10 December, I announced that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South, and I would jointly chair a meeting with key stakeholders, which we did—indeed, we had the first meeting that evening. Our goal is to deliver environmental improvements to Stonehenge, including new visitor facilities, in keeping with its status as a world heritage site by the beginning of 2012. In response to requests to report on that meeting, I will say that there was a real spirit of determination among those who were present to work together and bury the hatchet and to seek a consensual solution. We have set an ambitious timetable, but we will achieve what we want only if we work creatively and co-operate in the next phase. I cannot stress enough the importance of co-operation and I ask all those with an interest to support us in any way they can.

We will, as the hon. Member for Salisbury noted, draw on the detailed investigations that have taken place over the years—it would be madness to try to reinvent the wheel. They will include the Stonehenge master plan, which was presented at the public inquiries for the A303 and the visitor centre, as well as the earlier plans that he mentioned regarding the location of the visitor centre. A central part of that work will be a review of the Stonehenge world heritage site management plan published in 2000, which my hon. Friend the Member for Telford mentioned. That plan has stood the test of time and much has been achieved since then, so we will use it as a basis from which to move forward, as the hon. Member for Salisbury suggested.

The overall vision still has long-term validity and many objectives need no change, including the ones that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—1 to 3, 11 and 18. We will, however, need to review how those objectives can be achieved. To make any significant changes to the world heritage site boundary, which I think he might have suggested, we would have to submit a new nomination to the UNESCO world heritage committee, which would render our timetable impossible. Much though I would like to help him in that regard, we will not go down that route. I therefore seek a review that focuses on the parts of the plan that need to be changed as a result of the decision that was announced to Parliament on 6 December.

The process of considering those decisions will inform subsequent decisions on making improvements to the environment around the stones and, crucially, on the location of the new visitor centre. We will keep the UNESCO committee fully informed about developments; indeed, we have already written to advise it of our decision, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport is to write again. We will report further to the committee at the end of January 2008 and keep it informed as we review the management plan.

Flowing from the revised management plan will be a new planning application and a new environmental statement, which we will publish. Work on that will involve exploring the case for closing the junction between the A303 and the A344, on which we must have a detailed assessment and public consultation. I look forward to co-operating with the hon. Member for Salisbury to ensure that that progresses as smoothly as possible, because on it will depend the need for a public inquiry.

We have wasted no time—we had our first meeting on the second working day after the announcement of 6 December. At this stage, I cannot comment further on all the costs and funding streams, but I am determined that we will have a set of exciting proposals in the shortest possible time. That being the case, I am sure that the Heritage Lottery Fund will be very interested to hear about them, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, decisions on such matters are for the trustees of the fund not for the House or the Government.

We have had a good debate in which I hope we have aired the issue in full. I think that we all share certain concerns and some disappointment regarding the current position. However, I trust that I have made it clear that the Government have a huge commitment as we move into the latest phase of delivering our goal, which must be to provide the right environment for Stonehenge in keeping with its world heritage status. We must do that in the shortest possible time, while adhering to proper procedures and public consultation. I ask all hon. Members for their co-operation throughout that process, and we shall report to the UNESCO committee for its meeting next July.

With those comments, I wish hon. Members a happy and peaceful Christmas. I look forward to pressing ahead with this important work in the new year. There is a lot to be done and it is an enormous privilege for me to be associated with this important piece of work.

Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Cummings, may I thank the Minister for the spirit in which she responded to this important debate? I hope she understands that we are aware that she has had to answer for the decision of another Department, which is what caused the rumpus, and that she will have a great deal of cross-party support as she seeks to achieve what she set out today.

I reiterate how important it is that the machinery of government address the issue and resolve the problems facing the Minister. I come back to a point that I referred to earlier: there has been a breakdown in the machinery of government over much more than the past eight or 10 years. Indeed, it is more like 50 years, because it is 50 years since the first schemes were proposed for dealing with the roads around Stonehenge. As well as a disappointment, the current situation is an opportunity, and we should all view it in that spirit. The devil is in the detail, and we must all pledge ourselves—I certainly do—to seeking consensus on the way forward. With that, Mr. Cummings, I thank you for chairing this extremely important debate.