---

Stonehenge

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 it is because of that that 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 of the 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. It was not just the stones that 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 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 the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), with whom I have had conversations since I assumed my position, 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.