---

Parliament Square

My Lords, I suppose that I have always been somewhere on the spectrum between ashamed, embarrassed and uncomfortable about what London presents to our visitors when they visit the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey. The message that visitors are tolerated rather than welcomed is compounded by the new notices that have appeared— although many are now on the pavement rather than attached to railings—issuing warnings about trespass and criminal offences. This is a pity, because progress was being made towards welcoming visitors to this building. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wallace for raising the issue of the area outside the building. There are so many Londoners who visit this part of London, as well as people from the rest of the UK and overseas; we are aware of the enormous value of tourism to London and the UK economy. There cannot be many visitors to London who do not visit this part of SW1. I know that many of us who work here often find it a struggle to get around, and I confess that I do not always feel wholly tolerant, but that is partly because so many people in large, impenetrable groups—with a wish to photograph each other against this splendid setting and no wish at all to move very fast—are forced into a narrow area of pavement. Parliament Square serves little function other than as a traffic island, even if its statues and occasional flagpoles make it a rather handsome one. The other world square, Trafalgar, has been improved almost literally out of all recognition. When Ken Livingstone was Mayor of London, he was happy to take the credit for that, though in truth it was not his scheme at its inception. Closing the north side to vehicles not only joins the square and the National Gallery, making it easy to cross the square, it attracts pedestrians to it, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said. I am one of those and I very much appreciate that experience. The square is a world square for all: the casual pedestrian as much as the performers and audiences who now give it an extra dimension. The World Squares for All group’s study of Parliament Square contained comments which could apply equally to Trafalgar Square. It mentioned the frustrated links between key spaces, and what sums up for me the criteria for Parliament Square; namely, the need for a dignified and accessible setting for a world heritage site. When my noble friend asked me whether I would speak about the closing of two sides of Parliament Square, I asked him in turn whether that would lead to an increase in traffic along Great Smith Street. I thought that I should add my voice to the calls to investigate the knock-on effects and to carry out origin and destination studies on routes on both sides of the river, as other noble Lords said. I also chided myself that my first reaction was to ask where cars would go. I drive far too often. However, early last week I realised that—given the politics of the situation, including the fact that this is the home patch of the mayor’s adviser on planning matters—this ambitious plan might remain just that rather than be likely to succeed. Then I heard about Mayor Johnson’s plans, or rather his rowing back from plans. In an article on the square by Building Design, the mayor, when asked about Design for London’s 100 Public Spaces project, is quoted as saying: "““The butterflies and the trees and architects’ plans—I love all that, and I think that people will, you know, generally like them very much.""There are some differences about some of the proposals currently on the drawing board and I don’t want to get dragged into a discussion … because a lot of them are under review now.""But I’m strongly attracted to things which give people a sense of ownership over public space, particularly cyclists””." No doubt there are many reasons why Mayor Johnson rowed back from the proposals, one of which is money. I have no doubt that the new mayor will look to gain savings wherever he can in his first budget. As my noble friend said, the Conservative Party has deliberately positioned itself as the motorist’s friend. Further, the taxi driver lobby conducted a most impressive campaign in support of Mr Johnson. The vehemence of its reaction to changes at Trafalgar Square would certainly have given any mayor pause. From 2000 onwards that lobby campaigned vigorously against the proposals of Mayor Livingstone. I often found that when taking a taxi between this building and City Hall I needed to concentrate intensely on my blackberry or my mobile phone to avoid conversation. I am not suggesting that decisions about Parliament Square should not be London decisions; they should be. This debate is not about abandoning devolution because we may disagree with the London government on one matter. However, we are parliamentarians. We work here, most of us live here, and we have London’s interests at heart. Therefore, we are entitled to comment. My comment is, ““Be bold, Boris. Raise your sights to fulfil your stewardship of this world city””.