---

Parliament Square

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for raising the subject of world squares. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have contributed so knowledgeably to today’s debate. In the time available to me I propose to summarise the House’s position on the world squares proposals. However, noble Lords will appreciate that my responsibility for matters relating to Parliament Square is strictly limited, so I will not be in a position to respond to many of the points made. I am not the mayor, and most of the speeches that I heard this evening were directed at him. As noble Lords will be aware, the World Squares for All study was begun in 1996 by a number of organisations that now form the World Squares for All steering group. The group appointed consultants to undertake the development of a master plan whose objective was to redefine the heart of London, specifically Trafalgar Square, Parliament Square and the Whitehall conservation area. The steering group is developing proposals which include pedestrianising the south side of Parliament Square and reducing traffic on its east side, as has been said. I understand that Transport for London is undertaking further traffic studies before the scheme advances, at the request of the mayor. The steering group will meet in September to review progress. I should make it clear that the Parliament Square proposals did not originate within Parliament and Parliament is not the owner of the scheme. The proposals have been brought forward by the Greater London Authority and Transport for London and I do not claim to speak on behalf of either body; as I said, nor do I speak for the mayor. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will accordingly recognise that my responsibility for the matter raised in his Question is distinctly limited. That said, Parliament is an important consultee to the process; I reassure the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on that account. The parliamentary director of estates attends the world squares steering group as a representative of the Parliamentary Estate. The director reports the developments of the steering group to committees of both Houses and feeds back the committees’ views. Noble Lords might find it helpful if I took a few moments to summarise some of the work undertaken by Lords committees in recent months. In May, the Administration and Works Committee took on responsibility for reviewing the proposals and scrutinised the likely impact of the scheme upon access to Parliament. The committee raised a number of issues which it reported to the House Committee in June, and upon which it sought clarification from the mayor. Those include the precise traffic restrictions proposed, particularly with regard to vehicle access to and traffic direction on St Margaret Street, the basis for the forecast traffic reductions on St Margaret Street, and assurance on the maintenance of pedestrian access to St Margaret’s Church during ceremonial occasions. I look forward to the mayor’s response to those points. I hope that noble Lords will also be interested to know, to respond directly to the thrust of the Question, that I raised with the mayor in my letter of 30 June the possibility for closure of Abingdon Street and St Margaret Street to all traffic except vehicles requiring access on behalf of parliamentarians and the emergency services. That would eradicate the major threat to the security of the Palace posed by the free movement of traffic on the thoroughfare, a point made by a number of noble Lords. It would also enable a large pedestrianised area to be built, on which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and others are so keen. I am aware, however, that such a closure would impact significantly upon traffic movement in Westminster, particularly the local area. Any proposal would therefore have to respond sensitively to the views of local residents, some of whom are Members of this House, as I have heard at Question Time. That point was also made by a number of noble Lords. I turn to a specific issue raised in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whom I congratulate on asking me a question for which I have responsibility. The question concerned the removal in the Summer Recess of the black portacabins in the car park, now that the new visitor reception building is open. The noble Lord’s proposal that we should convert that area into a parking area for cycles would be a matter for the Administration and Works Committee in the first place. However, I would point out that we do not offer parking facilities for visitors at all, whether they arrive by bike, car or whatever. I would also point out that there is great demand for parking spaces in front of the palace and that Peers will much welcome the return of those places when the black portacabins have gone. In conclusion, Parliament Square is a world famous public square of historical, political, religious and cultural importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made clear in his fine opening speech. I hope that I have demonstrated how committees and representatives of this House and the other place are engaging with the world squares steering group as the proposals develop. The Administration and Works Committee will continue to scrutinise the development of the proposals with a view to ensuring that the right balance is struck between the need to facilitate access to Parliament, the requirement to ensure the security of Members and staff, and the desire to improve the visitor experience. Noble Lords are welcome to submit their views on this or any other proposal to the Administration and Works Committee. They are also welcome to convey their views directly to the Greater London Authority, Transport for London and the mayor. I thank the noble Lord for bringing this subject forward, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.