---

Arbroath Abbey

I am fascinated by the subject, and the hon. Gentleman will know that my husband is particularly fascinated by all ecclesiastical buildings, including Arbroath abbey, so I shall take up his recommendation. The hon. Gentleman is right: I am going to say that the Government are reviewing their world heritage policy. We are in the middle of a public consultation that began on 2 December and will end on 25 February. I understand his urgency, but given that the consultation is ongoing, I must confine my remarks to why we have chosen to hold it and the possible impact on future nominations. Given that he has read the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, some of my comments will be known to him. First, however, I would like to apologise to him. I have here a copy of my reply to his letter of 22 December, which must be winging its way to him as we speak. I am extremely sorry for the delay and shall let him have a copy. However, due to the Christmas break, I am afraid that our monthly targets sometimes slip a little. This debate is timely and I welcome the opportunity to hear the hon. Gentleman's views on the subject, which is a matter of national and international importance. As he said, where better to hold the debate than in this building, which became a world heritage site 22 years ago—not just for its architectural importance, but, like Arbroath, because it has a very important place in the history of our democracy. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport leads for the Government on world heritage issues, and is responsible for ensuring that the United Kingdom meets its obligations under the world heritage convention passed in 1972. We take that responsibility very seriously. As he mentioned, it is one of UNESCO's most successful heritage conventions, and it has been signed and ratified by 186 countries. It has also proved to be a positive force in safeguarding the heritage of the countries that signed up to it. The United Kingdom signed up to the convention in 1984, and has fully supported UNESCO and the world heritage committee in its implementation. From 2001 to 2005, the UK was a full member of the world heritage committee, stepping down only because our term of office came to an end. Over the past decade, our commitment to the convention has been reflected in our support for work on the revision of the operational guidelines, which govern how the convention is implemented, our encouragement of the world heritage committee in developing a strategy for managing the impact of climate change on world heritage sites—Abu Simbel being a clear example of that—and our supporting developing nations in putting together their own nominations for world heritage inscription. Last year, the UK hosted an international expert working group on behalf of the world heritage committee to develop a framework for the recognition of sites of interest for the heritage of science and technology. The recommendations of the meeting were welcomed by the world heritage committee at its annual meeting in Quebec last July. We have also contributed funds for bilateral programmes to support world heritage in other parts of the world, including Anguilla and St. Lucia, and to help to start up the world heritage fund in Africa. At national level, the Government have been working to enhance our protection for the world heritage sites in the UK, which we are privileged to have. We are, as I said earlier, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the throes of a review considering how best the policy on the nomination of sites can reflect the world heritage committee's priorities. Inscription on the world heritage list is the highest possible heritage accolade and I fully understand the aspirations of those wishing to achieve it. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are 178 sites in more than 145 countries. We are lucky enough to have 27 sites spread over an enormous geographical and historical range. The UK is in the top 10—to be accurate, it is equal seventh—in terms of the number of sites represented on the world heritage list. This is a great privilege, but it also brings a great deal of responsibility with it. The route to world heritage status is not easy and the process is, of necessity, selective. World heritage sites are recognised by the committee as places of outstanding universal value to humanity and many, even though they are of national and international importance, will not meet UNESCO's stringent criteria for inclusion on the list. To be included on the list, sites that are likely to be put forward in future years must first go on their country's tentative list. The current UK tentative list was published in 1999 and contains 25 sites, nine of which have since been inscribed and one more, Pontcysyllte—I have not pronounced that well—a canal and aqueduct in Wales, has been nominated for consideration by the world heritage committee this summer. This week, we will submit Darwin's landscape laboratory for consideration next year and work is under way for the nomination of the twin monastery of Wearmouth and Jarrow in 2010. UNESCO requires states that are party to the world heritage convention to review their tentative lists every 10 years. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, UNESCO is pursuing a global strategy to redress imbalances, both geographic and thematic, on the world heritage list. For example, Europe and north America have 50 per cent. of the sites on the list, while Africa has only 9 per cent and the Arab states have even fewer, at 7 per cent. That unbalanced representation has led UNESCO to ask the well-represented countries to consider slowing or even stopping their rate of nomination. UNESCO is limiting the number of nominations to a maximum of two per country per year, which puts a great deal of pressure on countries with tentative lists containing many aspirant sites. The UK is one such country. The interest in nomination grows each year, as does the number of aspiring sites. World heritage status is seen as being highly desirable in terms of prestige and economic benefit. As the Minister with responsibility for tourism, and the Minister who called the summit at which the Prime Minister spoke, I am keen that such events and site-led tourism should be developed, because people do not come here for our weather; they come for our heritage and other things that they can see. The cost of bids can be high—up to £400,000 according to estimates—and has to be borne by the local bid partnership. The cost cannot be retrieved if the bid fails, and there is no guarantee of inscription at the end of the process. Given those considerations, the Government felt that it would be irresponsible not to take a close look, when formulating future policy, at the costs and benefits of world heritage status. There are many questions to consider. For example, is designation sustainable? Where are the development pressures? What is the balance between the benefits and costs of such status? Another important question is whether the benefits have been overstated. Those, however, are questions not for the Chamber, but for the ongoing public consultation on this matter. We hope that the public, including the people of Arbroath, will respond to the consultation in a way that gives us a wide range of opinions. I look forward to hearing the outcome of the consultation and to reading the responses of those who are responsible for Arbroath abbey.