---

Parliament Square

My Lords, it is difficult to better the description that my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, gave of the buildings that comprise the Westminster estate and of the palace and St Margaret’s. It seems to me that anybody arriving here as a tourist or visitor from another country must be amazed at the way in which this unique and historic group of buildings is presented. Many tourists come here because Westminster and Westminster Abbey feature on their short list of destinations, but they get a pretty raw deal because they get a very poor view of what they ought to be able to see. They would be well served by a pedestrianisation, either in whole or in part, such as is proposed. Visitors face difficulties getting into the square as they have to negotiate pedestrian crossings and avoid traffic and other pedestrians. The view south towards the river, Big Ben and the Palace of Westminster cannot be viewed in calm contemplation, as should be the case. One has a sense of urgency due to the need to avoid the problems I mentioned. The pedestrianisation that is suggested would also give a wonderful vista from Parliament Square towards Trafalgar Square, taking in the Cenotaph. I differ slightly from my noble friend in that, for practical and aesthetic reasons, I think that the Cenotaph is well situated in Whitehall. But there may be an argument for moving it, if we ever arrive at the point where decisions are made. As today is 14 July, it may be appropriate to mention that the French are rather good at grands projets. They seem to have the political will to push things through. We are, to use a football analogy, rather good at set pieces such as royal lyings-in-state in Westminster Abbey, the Trooping of the Colour and the opening of Parliament, where everything is immaculately done—I can detect no fault in those ceremonial occasions—but we do not seem able to visualise grands projets. Other countries seem to find that much easier. Perhaps we are successful at set pieces because politicians are scarcely involved, or not at all. It seems to me that the problem with the project we are discussing is that nobody stands to lose out except the motorist, the lorry driver and the bus driver, due to congestion. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to conduct studies and, one way or another, to master the problem of the traffic congestion. I know that we cannot do what Monsieur Delanoë is doing in France, because we do not have wide avenues down which to bus people in from parks on the other side of the river. That would be ideal irrespective of whether the plans for the square went ahead. We are rather constrained by lack of space. However, it seems that all those who have an interest in this project, including parliamentarians, Westminster Abbey, Westminster School, which nobody has mentioned, St Margaret’s and pedestrians—everybody except the motorist—would benefit from pedestrianisation, which would uprate this great collection of buildings. We have this very disfiguring sequence of barriers in front of the palace. I am surprised that the road is considered to comprise the area of highest risk in terms of attack. If we closed off the southern side to traffic, that danger would certainly be diminished. But is there really a danger? It seems to me that if terrorists seriously planned to attack us, they would be much more likely to do so from the river side. If there is to be an explosion in this building, it seems much more likely to come from the smokers who are now gathered around my motorcycle, among other things. Smokers are gathered round motorcycles and cars in the centre of this building in a way that would not be allowed in any garage in Britain under local laws. Policemen have said to me that we are in Monty Python-land, but we are not; if an explosion takes place, it will wreak a lot of destruction. I know that Black Rod, much tried, is dealing with that as best he can and we can expect an improvement in the lot of the smokers, who, with the agreement of English Heritage, will finally have a sheltered space ere long. The residents also will not worry if traffic is diminished. Great Smith Street was rather an experience last year; I admit that I ventured down there once or twice. Although I keep clear of the square on my bicycle—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is probably more intrepid than I am—I sneak away in side streets to make my way to the joys of the parks. St James’s Park is the closest, where we are not allowed to ride but we can push our bikes and enjoy the wonderful vistas. It is a wonderful area; I love London. The Question pushes along and tries to get urgency into some political will; we need to get it to move on. I have great expectations of the mayor. He clearly has intelligence; we have heard so much about that. ““Rowing back”” was the expression used this evening. That seems appropriate for a mayor enjoying a honeymoon period—a not altogether untroubled one. I do not think that he has shown disapproval of the plans; he just wants to think about it. I am sure that he will fundamentally have the views that we all have. I hope that he returns in due course with the confidence that we expect him to gain as mayor and put some impetus behind them, and gets together with Westminster Council so that we can get a sensible plan for moving forward. It is untenable that we stay like this. The bivouacs—the shanty town in the middle of Parliament Square—will continue as long as we do not have any great plans. Who knows? If they go on for long, the people there might all have children. I see a proliferation of the tents; I think that they are just for bikes at the moment, but they might well be for children if a decision about them is postponed for ever. There is some urgency. The proposal would do us enormous good as a nation, do London good as a tourist destination, and make our lives and pedestrians’ lives better. Perhaps it would not make the motorists’ lives better, but I am sure that we can find a solution.