|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Highways Agency has appointed Dr. John Samuels to give advice on the archaeological aspects of A.303 improvement schemes near Stonehenge. The agency has discussed the schemes with other government departments and with English Heritage and has now arranged a planning conference as a forum for debate between all interested parties. The Highways Agency is not promoting any specific route.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he explain to the House why the Highways Agency, contrary to earlier assurances, has not involved the Department of National Heritage or English Heritage in the organisation of the conference? Why is the notorious yellow route put forward in the brochure as one of the options when it was withdrawn by a previous Minister of Transport as unacceptable on environmental grounds in July 1994? Will my noble friend assure the House that there has not been a change of policy in the department on the yellow route and so direct the engineers who are running this curious conference?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not strange that the agency has put forward for public discussion routes which it no longer wishes to build and therefore presumably will not build however much the public approve of them? Is it not even more strange that the agency has not put forward for public discussion the only route to meet with the general approval of the archaeological community in the country, including the Government's advisers, and all others who care for Stonehenge as a monument, namely a long tunnel under the existing road, which would be the shortest long tunnel there could be?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord questions why a number of options have not been put forward. We have put forward the work that has been done, routes that have been worked up and those that are considered affordable. As for English Heritage's preferred route, that has changed as the process has been taken forward. English Heritage now sees considerable merit in the so-called northern purple route, which is one of the options on the table, albeit with a length of tunnel in the north-eastern corner.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is a very important road? It is needed, but it must be right. It is not acceptable that routes should be rejected as being unaffordable, as was indicated in my noble friend's Written Answer yesterday. It would be much better not to build the new road until the Government can afford the right solution. I am sure that the Government would not wish to leave a cheap and inappropriate heirloom at this crucial site. Can we be reassured on that point?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, we have to live in the real world and have some consideration for cost. We are talking of a very long tunnel and costs of a magnitude of some £300 million as against perhaps £40 million for one of the other routes. It must be true that all the routes considered so far produce real environmental gains and real benefits for the world heritage site itself. We have not decided on a route. We are not even proposing a route at the moment. The purpose of the conference is to get everyone together to talk over the issues in a less formal setting than a public inquiry and to see if some consensus can be reached.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the protection of the world heritage site is a very high priority. We must also consider safety, traffic and the needs of local people. There is a wide variety of issues. I can confirm that we give the highest possible priority to the great importance of Stonehenge as a world heritage site in this country.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people find it puzzling that after 10 years of consultation about the route of the A.303discussions in which I was involved for many yearsthere is now to be yet another inquiry which I gather will not be a statutory inquiry so there will have to be a public inquiry afterwards anyway?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is right. It is not a statutory process but it is a device that we have used in other circumstances where there is a clear polarity of opinion. We have chosen to take the process forward in this way because the very consultation which my noble friend described was inconclusive. We did not get any firm idea of what was the best way forward. That is why we are proceeding in this manner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): No, my Lords. With the exception of listed sports events which cannot be shown on a pay-per-view basis, sports rights holders should continue to be free to dispose of their rights to broadcast in the way they choose. It is for them to judge the best balance between the level of income from broadcasting rights, the size of the television audience, the amount and type of coverage and the impact on potential spectators and supporters.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can only reiterate the point that I made in my first reply. It seems that the noble Lord is jumping an awful lot of hurdles in one bound in assuming that Sky will acquire these rights. There is a variety of possible interests and permutations. I can only refer the noble Lord to a report in the Independent of the 13th of this month, in which a representative of football interests says that:
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a certain royal and ancient game is involved in this particular subject? Will he please consider that, while his answers so far appear to be par for the course, many of us would like to see him strike a few birdies?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his golfing question. Since I am no golfer myself I am not entirely clear what he meant. In a sense, that illustrates some of the problems in this area. There is a list of events, to which I have referred, and golf is not included on it. No doubt the golfing industry and golf in general has benefited greatly from the recent contract with Sky.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page