---

Stonehenge

It is a pleasure to participate in this important and timely debate. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (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, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (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.””—[Official Report, 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 could spell 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 could say 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 about 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 for heritage in the UK, 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.