HL Deb 21 October 1993 vol 549 cc690-706

6.50 p.m.

Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards world heritage sites, in particular Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, turning from broad things to deep things, as it were, and from new to old, I am glad to have the opportunity of tabling this Unstarred Question tonight and I am grateful to noble Lords who are present for this debate and to those who will speak after me. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, has had to scratch from the debate. He told the House what he thought earlier in the week, so we shall take that on board.

The United Kingdom is bound by the 1972 international Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage to do the following things. It is bound to ensure the, protection, conservation … and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage".

The UK adhered to the convention in 1984 and our 13 world heritage sites were identified by the Government themselves. Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites is one of them—I am sorry about the cumbersome expression, but that is its name—and is alone of its kind in that it comprises two great neolithic ceremonial landscapes which are quite widely separated one from the other.

Another international instrument which the Government have signed but which is not yet in force is the Council of Europe Convention on Archaeology. This should not be forgotten either. The English Tourist Board published an excellent document on sustainable tourism a couple of years ago; and that concept is taken up in another recent Department of the Environment consultation paper called Sustainable Development. The Regional Planning Guidance for the South West, in which Stonehenge and Avebury lie, also talks sensibly about "sustainable tourism". I shall return to these points.

At Stonehenge itself one of the most important factors is, indeed, sustainability. What is the maximum sustainable number of tourists at the stones themselves and over the whole equally important associated sites area?

A paper called the Draft Policy Planning Guidance No. 15, which has just finished its consultation period and is due out in its final form later this year, does mention world heritage sites, but pretty much in passing. As interested Members of the House will know, these planning policy guidances are the daily bread-and-butter manual for local planning authorities when dealing with planning. This guidance is devoted to "the heritage" and is consequently of extraordinary practical importance. For that reason it is a great pity that the present draft text is rather weak. It seems almost to be telling local authorities that the Government are not too concerned about their commitments to world heritage sites under the 1972 convention; and seems to suggest they need not be too concerned either. I have sent to the relevant Minister some suggestions for beefing the whole thing up: that would be quite simple to do.

The point is that the Government of this country have under this convention assumed certain obligations, and have done so before world opinion. That is what treaties mean. And if the central government have done so as a whole, then they have done so on behalf of every part of central government. They have also done so on behalf of the local planning authorities, who are the creatures of Parliament and form part of the government of this country. They are as much bound by the 1972 convention as the central government, and it is the duty of central government to tell them how to carry out their obligations and to see that they do.

The Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites world heritage site shows up only too clearly the problems at present facing world heritage sites in relation to the planning system—and vice versa. Everything that happens at Stonehenge has implications for Avebuty. This has to be borne in mind now at Stonehenge. I have in mind particularly the great discovery of two large neolithic circles at Avebury under the West Kennet farmhouse. This discovery was made six years ago. The farmhouse was bought a few years ago by a speculative builder, who proposed a hotel and was then bankrupted. The receiver held it for months and months during which its listed buildings deteriorated. It has now been sold by the receiver to another anonymous buyer, probably another speculative builder: at any rate he will not divulge his identity. And during all these months—years now—English Heritage, though of the opinion that the new archaeological discoveries should be scheduled (as who would not be?) has not got round to persuading the Government to schedule them. Moreover, the boundary of the world heritage site cuts right through these circles, and no steps have been taken to extend that boundary.

All this indicates a certain confusion and laxness. First of all comes the question of how, within government, such things are handled. At the moment, it is a cat's cradle of ownerships and responsibilities. English Heritage answers to the Department for National Heritage; planning inquiries are run by the Department of the Environment; local planning authorities are instructed by the planning policy guidances which I have just mentioned which come from the Department of the Environment and the Department for National Heritage; trunk roads belong to the Department of Transport, and local roads to the highway authorities and thus to local government. The Ministry of Defence owns important bits of land at Stonehenge and elsewhere, and different official bodies designate the various areas of special scientific interest and so on which also exist hereabouts. The National Trust holds land inalienably, and the Secretary of State for National Heritage—or is it the Secretary of State for the Environment; I have not been able to find out—holds land for the Crown and delegates its management to English Heritage. At Stonehenge, the National Trust is even more tightly committed by the terms of its original public appeal for money to save parts of the Stonehenge estate: both "the plough", which must surely include "the bulldozer", and seaside-type jollification in general would be precluded for ever under the terms of the appeal, and solitude and silence restored.

This means that there is very great difficulty in devising a joint management structure for the whole Stonehenge area which many, including, I believe, both English Heritage and the National Trust, would like and which they are trying to devise. The idea is a management trust, perhaps "leasing" from the Crown and the National Trust. But it will be difficult to decide to whom the trust is responsible. We must wish them well in their attempts to sort this out. It will be the first time that such a thing has been tried and it will not be easy. In short, it is absolutely right that the noble Baroness answering on this occasion should enjoy interdepartmental status. If I may say so, that is a great advantage of her position.

At Stonehenge, it is certainly necessary to get something better than what there is now, which is awful. But even more important is to get it right. Many plans and changes of plan over the last decade have emerged from English Heritage. Earlier this year the Department of Transport came up with some proposals for "improving" the A.303 trunk road which runs right through the world heritage site. Each of the department's two proposed routes is entirely unacceptable, and I understand that English Heritage and the National Trust have told Ministers this—so, I expect, has the relevant international body which invigilates world heritage sites.

I wonder whether the officials devising the routes were aware that the Department of Transport is just as much bound by the 1972 convention as is any other part of the Government. For that part of the A.303, the only thing that can make sense is a long tunnel from east of King Barrow Hill to west of Longbarrow roundabout. That, I hope, is what English Heritage and the National Trust have told the Department of Transport. It will of course be expensive, but that is something upon which they cannot scrimp. This is one of the very oldest and grandest things in the world. The cost of tunnelling is coming down all the time. The Department of Transport is spending, it says, £1,509 million on new construction this year and next, which is 64 per cent. of its total expenditure. The rest relates to the improvement of older roads. So the money is there—it really is—if the priorities can be got right.

Now as to sustainable tourism, monuments can be worn out. The Parthenon is closed because it was being worn away by visitors; the Lascaux Caves are closed because visitors' breath was destroying the painting; Snowdon is protected from being overrun by having a very small carpark, which is a clever idea; and the National Trust rightly carefully omits to advertise certain of its vulnerable properties.

It is the control of numbers that is the key to sustainable tourism. What is the sustainable number of tourists at the stones of Stonehenge themselves and over the whole, equally important, green, associated sites around it? A figure of 1 million tourists a year has sometimes emerged. That was absurd. My impression is that it might well now have been abandoned. I hope so.

Stonehenge has absolutely to be protected. The convenience of today's mass tourism organisers has to come a very late second to that. English Heritage has to work out very carefully what number of visitors throughout the Stonehenge estate is sustainable. If it does not do so, it will get its plans wrong.

How do we interpret "protection" and "conservation", which is the language of the 1972 convention? When does necessary development—for instance, a new visitors' centre as at Stonehenge—become exploitation or indeed provide a visual rival to the monument itself? Is any new touristíc development within the world heritage site permissible? At Fountains Abbey, most regrettably, the new visitors' centre has to be described as exploitation in its own right: its whole scale and character seem aimed at rivalling the abbey ruins and wiping them out of one's mind as one returns to leave the site through the visitors' centre. Its huge cost is reflected in high entrance prices that visitors so strongly resent. "Isn't this our monument?", they write, again and again in the comments book. "We cannot afford to come again".

At Stonehenge we have the question of the new visitors' centre. I hope we get the long tunnel road (at least 4 kilometres); and the carpark set way back at Amesbury at the Countess Road roundabout. I hope that visitors will then approach the stones themselves by a little railway (part of the track is still there from the First World War) which is very unobtrusive and largely underground. The only question outstanding is whether the visitors' centre should be built wholly underground, under the site of the then closed A.303, so as not to damage any more archaeology, or whether it could not be safely sited back at the Countess Road roundabout where it could be built in the fresh air. Nothing would happen except that one would go on the tiny train, emerge through a modest hole in the ground and spread out over the whole green space of Stonehenge.

I believe that no substantial exploitative development in a greenfield site at Stonehenge can any longer even be contemplated, and I believe that English Heritage now shares that conviction.

7.4 p.m.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, all those interested in our heritage should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for giving us once again an opportunity to question government policy on world heritage sites. I well recall the debate we had in February 1989 when the noble Lord raised the specific question of government policy towards Avebury which had recently become a world heritage site. He rightly pointed out then that there was little point in giving such sites special status if they received no treatment such as additional planning protection and financial help. He also called for a special commission to report on the problem.

The Government were not too receptive or enthusiastic about that idea, and felt that due to the diversity of sites and the existing powers to control areas of outstanding natural beauty and SSSIs they had all the powers that were necessary. As chairman of English Heritage at the time, which was the statutory adviser to the Department of the Environment on such matters, we nevertheless decided to take the initiative, and in the debate I announced that we would be setting up a working party, not just to study the Avebury world heritage site but, in co-operation with the National Trust, local authorities and other interested parties, to produce a management strategy plan which could in some cases be relevant to other world heritage sites.

I am glad to say that the working party was duly set up, and a management statement which had been agreed by all the interested bodies represented on it was launched formally in the council chamber of Kennet District Council at Devizes in September 1992. The statement recommended that the working party should continue to take forward the various specific areas of work that needed to be done in a proactive way, within the overall framework of the management strategy.

The working party has now appointed two practical sub-groups, one to address the question of traffic and visitor management and the other to concentrate upon the historical and archaeological aspects of the site. Both of those groups have produced useful reports which I understand are currently out for consultation with the interested bodies with a view to their implementation, subject to the results of any comments received. Such work needs to be ongoing, but I have been assured by my successor at English Heritage that he is reasonably happy about the level of thought, effort and attention that is going into the world heritage site at Avebury at present.

There is, as every visitor knows, a confusing overlap in the National Trust and English Heritage curatorship of Avebury. In my time I initiated discussions with the National Trust to explore the wisdom and practicality of the four monuments there currently looked after by English Heritage passing to the National Trust under some form of guardianship agreement. I am delighted to hear constructive discussions have continued, and that there is a good chance that the National Trust will curate the whole of Avebury from 1st April next year—an excellent step forward.

With regard to the more general question of world heritage sites, they are of widely differing kinds. Blenheim is, for example, a single historic site, whereas Bath is a complete city. Durham is a great cathedral in a city, whereas Stonehenge is a site set in an archaeological landscape. It is therefore impossible to lay down specific rules for world heritage sites as different forms of approach are needed for each management plan.

To talk about Stonehenge in particular, one of the first actions I took as chairman of English Heritage in 1984 was to set up a working party on Stonehenge, which reported in 1985. The report was well received in that it suggested how Stonehenge could be isolated in its archaeological environment by closing the A.344, which virtually goes through the site, and removing the unsightly tourist facilities from their present position to one three-quarters of a mile away from the stones themselves. They are all measures which a world heritage site such as Stonehenge surely deserves.

Unfortunately, the plan suffered frustrating delays due to the inability of the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Defence, local authorities and certain local individuals, to agree upon a solution. It was not helped by the Department of Transport telling us categorically that there were no plans for extending the dual carriage-way on the A.303 any further west in the foreseeable future. My preferred solution of a tunnel was thought desirable, but viewed as too expensive.

It was with great pleasure that I recently learnt that there has been a miraculous change of heart at the Department of Transport and a serious study is at present underway into building an even longer tunnel of four kilometres, and that interest in the two routes to the south has considerably waned. This is just the kind of special consideration that a site like this deserves. I further understand that the present Chairman of English Heritage has had the very practical idea of building the new visitors' centre underground as part of the tunnelling operation, which would do even more to restore a sense of openness to the landscape. I welcome this plan with great enthusiasm. Of course, we all know that tunnels are expensive but so are new roads. I cannot believe that the difference between the cost: of a tunnel as envisaged and the proposed alternative road is so different as to make the Government, indeed any government, wish to ignore the tremendous advantages of the tunnel solution.

What I am certain of is that whichever government restore the reputation of Stonehenge to one of the world's greatest archaeological sites will deserve much praise and respect. Indeed, the reputation of the whole country with regard to all our historic sites will be measured and judged internationally by the way in which we look after our world heritage sites. There is no doubt in my mind that special policies and measures have to be adopted as owners of such sites, be they government, local authorities, ecclesiastical or private, have unusual responsibilities and unique liabilities, I know that my noble friend the Duke of Marlborough is very proud that Blenheim is a world heritage site. Nevertheless, as he rightly points out, the grants that English Heritage has been able to give him have been woefully inadequate for such an enormous set of buildings. Even, apparently, rich men are daunted by the scale of the problem.

I am confident that world heritage sites are now becoming increasingly respected, and are looming larger in the preparation of local plans. What I am pleading for tonight is that they should also loom larger in the minds of government departments., and I hope that my noble friend Lady Trumpington will be able to reassure me on this point.

7.12 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, have put forward most cogent arguments. I speak as the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, which is the national body of survey and record of the historic environment. I wish to confirm the great importance that: it attaches to the status of the world heritage sites. For instance, it has only recently carried out the first modem archaeological ground survey of Avebury Stone Circle and its associated sites and it has revised the mapping of Hadrian's Wall and other such sites.

The commission's records and expertise are available to those who directly care for and manage such sites. We hope that those records and expertise can help the decision-making process when new developments affecting world heritage sites are proposed. 'Thus, English Heritage will be using our extensive information on Hadrian's Wall in its monuments protection programme. With particular reference to this debate, our information on sites identified from the air is informing the choice of the route of the A.303.

In addition, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMAS UK) is assessing our information as it produces short monitoring reports on each of the world heritage cultural sites in England. In the light of the ICOMAS UK report, the commission in its turn will be assessing what further records of world heritage sites will be desirable to assist in the long-term preservation of world sites.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for bringing these important issues before the House.

7.14 p.m.

Lord Cobbold

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this subject and to other noble Lords for participating in the debate. The question of the Government's policy towards world heritage sites raises the subject of their relationship with UNESCO. Although the world heritage sites come under the World Heritage Convention, to which we are a party, we must consider the Government's present policy on UNESCO. Two debates which took place earlier this year considered the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said that the Government approached the question of renewal of membership of UNESCO with a genuinely open mind. Will the noble Baroness indicate whether the Government are closer to reaching a decision? Is our membership, or non-membership, of UNESCO likely to affect the attitude of that body towards the provision of financial support for our heritage sites? Have the Government taken that into consideration?

I turn to the sites and to Stonehenge in particular. I do not claim to have any special knowledge of Stonehenge but I have first-hand experience of trying to preserve an historic building and of managing large-scale public access. I am well aware of the problems of balancing conservation with the access of tourists to the site. I have another tenuous connection with Stonehenge; in the 18th century my wife's ancestor, William Stuteley, played a major part in the exploration, surveying and preservation of Stonehenge. As it happens, I was driving along the A.303 last Sunday and was able to update my knowledge of Stonehenge.

All of us who have visited and know this magnificent and ancient site agree that something needs to be done and that the existing arrangements for visitors and the road configuration are unsatisfactory. We all support action, and action soon, but the difficulty is agreeing on what should be done. Everyone agrees that the visitor facilities are inadequate and that the A.344 should be grassed over and the visitor centre moved elsewhere. The difficulty, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is to decide how far away the tourist facilities should be, how large they should be, whether tourists should be encouraged, the degree of tourism that can be maintained and so forth. Those extremely difficult questions cause and have caused endless argument and tend to prevent anything from being done.

I understand that the main problem with the English Heritage preferred site at Larkhill is the considerable expense of building a long approach road. Therefore, I was pleased to hear the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, for new positioning perhaps in connection with a tunnelling operation for the A.303. A cheaper solution would be to use the Fargo Plantation site, which is the solution favoured by my party's representatives on the Salisbury District Council. However, there are disadvantages and problems associated with the architectural value of the area. I recognise that the problem is very difficult. I hope that in an attempt to create too grandiose a scheme we do not continue to do nothing.

I wish to make a final and perhaps controversial point. I believe that this country's heritage should not be totally dead. In managing an historic property one is conscious of the compliments which are often received indicating that one of the valuable aspects of the property is that it is lived in, used and alive. Clearly, that does not apply to Stonehenge but, nevertheless, it is an important living symbol to many people. Admittedly, some of them have a reputation for antisocial behaviour. I have sympathy for those who wish to celebrate the Summer Solstice in peace at Stonehenge. I hope that any future arrangement will be so structured as to make possible the use of the stones by members of the public so that they can play an ongoing living role in the enjoyment of those visitors.

That is all that I wish to say tonight. Once again, I should like to thank other speakers for participating in the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

7.20 p.m.

Lord Donoughue

My Lords, I should, first, like to take the opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, to her new ministerial post. It is my first opportunity to do so. I can say with conviction that I believe her knowledge of, and support for, the very central part of this portfolio—which, of course, is horse-racing—demonstrates her excellent qualifications for the job. We look forward to working very much in amity with her on various major policy issues of that kind.

As other speakers have said, I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for instigating the debate on a matter of great cultural interest. He introduced the debate with his considerable knowledge, with the aid of his former ministerial experience and his local expertise. My noble friend has certainly given the Minister, the Government and, indeed, all of us something to consider.

The debate was enlightened by several high level and very expert interventions, with a level of expertise which I cannot aspire to match. It seems to me to have focused on two main issues which were there in the basic proposition—the more general question of planning procedures for important heritage sites and the specific problems of Stonehenge. I shall say a few words about each, bearing in mind that it is getting late on a Thursday night.

Both of those issues—and, indeed, the related issues which have arisen or which could be introduced—contain basic factors and dilemmas in common. The root dilemma is that those problems involve a number of genuine, legitimate but conflicting interests. In nearly all of the questions concerning Avebury, Stonehenge, and so on which involve heritage sites, there is a fundamental heritage issue. In this case, it is mainly archaeological but there may be broadly architectural and historical aspects. There is often an environmental issue linked to the particular heritage issue. Moreover, there is usually a local community interest—that is, the basic concerns of the people who live and work in the area—and often a transport issue, as is the case here with the A.303 across Wiltshire. The interests of transient citizens are also legitimate but may or may not coincide with the interests of the local community. Finally, there is usually a separate economic interest, especially in terms of tourism.

Those different interests often point to more or less, to bigger or smaller constructions on the site and more or fewer roads to, from or across the site (or facilities for visitors); or, greater access, controlled access or limited or less access to the site. Preserving the historical entity usually means inhibiting modern demands. There is also an underlying aesthetic dimension—that anything that is done should be done well and beautifully.

It is not easy to achieve a consensus on the latter. Therefore, I shall begin by humbly acknowledging the dreadfully difficult task which all decision makers face in the field. Ultimately. in the real world, there must be concessions and compromises. The challenge is to get a fair balance between those legitimate and conflicting interests. However, for me that does not mean an equal balance. I should say at the start that I personally give top priority to the need to respect the historic personalities of the sites and, therefore, the archaeological considerations in the case of Stonehenge.

All other considerations, especially tourism and transport, should be subordinate to the historical and archaeological dimension. The archaeology of Stonehenge—and, indeed, Avebury, as was mentioned—is finite and unrepeatable. Once damaged or destroyed, it cannot be recreated or re-invented. Decisions which damage or destroy it are permanent and irrevocable. By contrast, the purposes of, say, tourism and transport can to some extent be replicated elsewhere. In any event, their priorities may change over time. We should certainly not grovel to tourism, important though it its economically, because it is the nature of tourism to overwhelm and destroy the very objects of its greatest desire. That is certainly a danger for Stonehenge over the coming years.

I should now like to move a little closer to the specifics of the debate. As regards the planning issue, I listened with great interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Kennet regarding the policy guidances and our treaty obligations. I shall also listen carefully to the Minister's response. I believe that my noble friend demonstrated convincingly the terrible tangle of responsibilities cutting across so many departments and institutional boundaries when looking at such a problem as Stonehenge. If that can be simplified or rationalised, I think that it would be a great help.

My main concern in the area is with the adequacy of current planning procedures in relation to all sites of heritage and cultural interest. Such sites need great and special care so far as concerns planning, bearing in mind those conflicting cultural, community, environmental, transport and tourist interests to which I referred. We must also remember that we are considering heritage sites of great world historic importance—classified as such in treaties. We know that Stonehenge and Avebury are surely the most important prehistoric sites outside the Mediterranean.

I question whether the planning committee of the local district council or the metropolitan borough, with all respect to those local dignitaries, is on an appropriate scale to deal with issues of such complexity and international cultural importance. I believe that the recent threats to Avebury, which have been mentioned, and the great neolithic site linked to Stonehenge, from proposed hotels, theme parks and so on underline that point. Would it not be better to have a statutory system of referring all applications affecting world heritage sites—or, perhaps, a wider range of sites—automatically to the Department of the Environment, with an obligation on the department to involve the heritage, environment and local community interests?

I turn now to Stonehenge. We seem to be on the edge of some critical decisions. English Heritage and the National Trust have given the matter immense thought and have commendably consulted a wide public opinion. However, I would urge them not to be too influenced by the polls. We should remember that crucial prehistoric bones do not have a vote in such matters. I believe that the Government would be wise to consider what English Heritage and the National Trust jointly propose in a very positive manner. They should certainly not allow the short-term or the cheapest solutions of the Department of Transport to prevail.

In the latter context, I should like to make a few final specific points on the proposals that have been aired. The present situation is unacceptable and unsustainable. The present roads—namely, the A.303 and the A.344—destroy the unity and sanctity of this great site. The present visitors' centre is ugly, with totally inadequate facilities. Therefore, the roads must be moved and hidden and the visitors' centre replaced and hidden. The two proposals from the Ministry of Transport for grey and yellow routes for the A.303 should be rejected, as English Heritage rightly concluded. The A.303 should be buried in the longest possible tunnel, thus preserving the landscape and the archaeological site. The visitors' centre should be considered in tandem with the tunnel solution and with the new A.303 and, like it, hidden (possibly in the bed of the old A.303) so that there is no more damage to any new sites.

The visitors' centre should also be of good architectural design so as not to intrude on the site landscape and—this is very important—it must be adequate to the needs of the next 30 or 50 years because we must not have this matter dug up all over again. On a more general point, Stonehenge must be seen, restored and preserved as part of that wider landscape of the heritage sites to which it is historically linked.

Will Her Majesty's Government ensure that all planning applications affecting world heritage sites go direct to the Department of the Environment, with an obligation to involve heritage expertise? What other proposals do Her Majesty's Government have to provide greater protection for world heritage sites? With specific regard to Stonehenge, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will look favourably on the longest possible tunnel for the new A.303; on incorporating the new visitors' centre into that plan; and above all on giving priority to heritage and archaeological considerations which involve the least possible disturbance to this unique site?

7.31 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for his extremely kind remarks. Did he say that it was his first appearance here?

Lord Donoughue

No, my Lords. However, it is my first appearance in the daunting shadow of the noble Baroness.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I was awfully glad to see that "Lady Donoughue" ran rather nicely a week or so ago. It seems to me to be particularly appropriate that my first speech as the new spokesman for national heritage should concern the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on ancient monuments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the advance notice he gave me of the points that he wished to raise.

I can assure your Lordships that the Government are fully aware of their obligations under the World Heritage Convention and of the importance of all the UK world heritage sites. We are particularly concerned to ensure that the sites are adequately protected.

The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, asked me about the position with regard to UNESCO. The question of whether the UK should rejoin UNESCO is a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All I can tell the noble Lord is that the matter is still under consideration. We fully comply with our obligations under the World Heritage Convention despite not being a member of UNESCO. Far from being paid money we have contributed to the World Heritage Fund £100,000 this year.

Under the terms of Article 5 of the World Heritage Convention, we are required to, endeavour, in so far as possible, and as appropriate for each country:… to set up, where such services do not exist, one or more services for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and national heritage with an appropriate staff and possessing the means to discharge their functions". We believe we have complied with Article 5. These services do exist in the UK and, in our view, the sites are adequately protected. Clearly, world heritage designation of a site is something which should be, and is, taken into account in UK planning procedures. And the main vehicle for ensuring the protection and preservation of our world heritage sites is through the statutory development plan and development control systems.

It is for each local authority, taking account of world heritage site designation and other relevant statutory designations, to formulate planning policies for these sites and to include these policies in their development plans. Different policies will be appropriate for different sites, but policies should reflect the fact that all these sites have been designated for their outstanding universal value. Great weight should therefore be placed on the need to protect them for the benefit of future generations as well as our own.

The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked me about planning applications. Mechanisms are already available. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the Secretary of State can call in any application for his own decision. Inclusion of a site in the world heritage list is not therefore, by itself, a direct instrument of planning control, but it does signal the importance of the site as a material factor to be taken into account by a local planning authority or by the Secretary of State for the Environment on appeal or, as I have already said, following call in. This is demonstrated by the cases at Avebury referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and by other cases at Ironbridge Gorge and, most recently, at Hadrian's Wall.

The planning applications at Hadrian's Wall were for exploratory drilling for hydrocarbons on land 400 metres south of the wall, and for open cast coal extraction on a former colliery site just north of the wall. Both applications were called in by the Secretary of State for the Environment and, following public inquiries, planning permission was refused in both cases. The main issue in each case was the possible impact of the development on the setting of the world heritage site. The Secretary of State concluded that the impact of the developments would be unacceptable. I have visited the wall and I know that it is a spectacular site. The surrounding countryside is also spectacular. Therefore I could not agree more with the decision of the Secretary of State.

I fully understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about planning protection for Avebury, and obviously all future proposed developments there should be scrutinized most carefully by the local planning authority. It must assess each proposal on its merits in the light of all material considerations, including the local plan for the area which was adopted last year, as well as other well established policies which apply to the locality. The Secretary of State for the Environment will equally have these considerations in mind when dealing with any applications and appeals that come before him for decision.

We must not, however, be complacent. My department is keeping a close watch on the situation regarding these important sites and aims to ensure that the legislation continues to provide an adequate framework for their protection. Recent changes include the strengthening of the planning and enforcement provisions in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the guidance in the Planning and Policy Guidance Note on Archaeology and Planning, published in 1990, which includes a presumption in favour of the physical preservation of nationally important archaeological remains, whether or not they are scheduled, and their settings.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will wish to note that my department is also including some guidance on the World Heritage Convention in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, which was published in draft for consultation in July. This guidance makes it clear that although world heritage site status does not entail additional statutory controls, it is a material consideration in the planning process, which provides the main means of safeguarding the sites. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has commented on the draft guidance, and we will be giving very careful consideration to the points he has made. Our aim is to publish the PPG early next year.

My department is also providing grant-aid over three years for the International Council on Monuments and Sites (UK) (commonly known as ICOMOS UK) to produce, with the agreement and co-operation of site owners, monitoring reports for the English sites. These reports will record the main facts about the condition and use of the sites, the management arrangements, visitor numbers, and draw attention to current issues affecting each site. ICOMOS UK will also encourage the production of comprehensive management plans for the sites. This is an important initiative which should assist the various organisations with responsibilities in this important area. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be interested to know that the boundaries of our world heritage sites will be looked at again by ICOMOS in the context of the monitoring reports.

My noble friend Lady Park mentioned the important role that the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments in England will be playing in that exercise. ICOMOS will certainly find the commission's extensive records most useful in drawing up the monitoring reports.

The exercise builds on the excellent initiative announced by my noble friend Lord Montagu in this House on 13th February 1989 of the preparation of a management strategy for Avebury. The strategy, which was produced by English Heritage in co-operation with the National Trust, the local authorities and others, was published in September 1992 and is designed to improve liaison between the various parties to ensure the proper planning and management of this internationally important site. There has been a great deal of good will among the various organisations. I should like to stress that fact in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, about cutting down the number of organisations involved.

The working party which co-operated over the production of the management strategy has continued in existence as the report recommended, and two further reports—addressing traffic and visitor management and archaeological and historical aspects—have been produced. Those reports are currently out to consultation.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised the subject of the emergency scheduling of the neolithic monuments which have recently been discovered at West Kennet Farmhouse. English Heritage's programme of work of preparing scheduling recommendations for the sites around Avebury, which is not restricted to the world heritage site and will include the West Kennet longbarrow, should be completed by next April. However, English Heritage will then need to complete a number of necessary administrative procedures, including pre-notification and responding to any objections, before any scheduling recommendations can be submitted to my department for consideration. English Heritage is nearing the pre-notification stage in respect of some of the proposals.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Am I right in thinking that there exists a procedure for emergency or spot scheduling? If that is so, what better case could there be for the exercise of that procedure than at these great monuments?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I am afraid that spot scheduling has not crossed my path in the past week. If there is information of any importance which I can give the noble Lord I shall write to him.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Park for drawing our attention in the context of the matters I have just mentioned to the excellent work of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, which provides: an invaluable contribution to our knowledge of sites and monuments and a central basis for their protection.

Turning to Stonehenge, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has taken an energetic interest in the proposals affecting the site and setting. It is true that many agencies are involved in determining the future of the area. That is often the case with large and complex developments, and the more so in this instance when such an important and fragile part of our heritage is at stake.

My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, both expressed a preference: for routing the A.303 through a long tunnel, as did the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. That option has emerged from the public consultation earlier this year. The ideas of an extended tunnel under a world heritage site and an underground visitor centre at New King Barrows are major issues of practicality and cost which need to be explored. That will take some time. Your Lordships will be interested to know that the idea is being examined most seriously by English Heritage and the Department of Transport.

The local authorities have responded energetically to ensure that local interests and the wider interests in the site benefited from their close scrutiny of the proposals at an early stage, ensuring that they are fully informed in discharging their statutory duties. It is abundantly clear first, that among all the options proposed none enjoys the support of everyone. Therefore, any solution is bound to be to some extent a compromise. Secondly, the one point on which there is very substantial agreement is that the present facilities at Stonehenge are themselves inadequate and detract from the special power of the site. I agree with the chairman of English Heritage that something must be done. I can assure the noble Lord that all parties are working to make sure that the solution chosen properly respects the importance of the whole Stonehenge area to our heritage and to the world heritage.

As your Lordships will be aware, my department is responsible not only for heritage matters but for tourism policy also. It was concern about the impact of tourism on historic towns, heritage sites and the countryside which prompted the Government to launch the Tourism and Environment Initiative in August 1990. A task force was established, which found that the problems are not as widespread as is sometimes believed. Where they do occur they are restricted to particular places at particular times of the year. The task force also found that much was already being done to ameliorate existing difficulties and suggested a number of ways in which other problems could be prevented or remedied.

The green theme has permeated through the whole range of tourism activity, from the national promotion of "alternative" destinations to the environmental focus given to many local tourism initiatives. One such is the Wiltshire tourism project, with which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be familiar, in which the impact of increased tourism on the environment is a key consideration. The project seeks to bring the economic benefits which tourism unquestionably provides without impinging on the very things that make the area so attractive to visit in the first place. One of its specific aims is to promote Wiltshire as a whole and encourage visits to places other than those which are already popular with tourists such as Stonehenge and Avebury. As we all know, Wiltshire has much more to offer the visitor in addition to those notable landmarks.

I reiterate that we fully appreciate the importance of these internationally renowned sites, each differing from the other, as highlighted by my noble friend Lord Montagu. However, we remain of the view that the existing statutory provisions are sufficient and provide a proper basis for the control of development and protection of the sites. We shall, of course, continue to keep a close watch on the situation and ensure that the legislation continues to provide a flexible and adequate framework for their protection. Your Lordships can rest assured that the interesting and varied comments which have emerged during this evening's valuable short debate will be carefully examined and noted by my department.

House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.