§ 4.12 p.m.
§ Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)After that pleasant exchange and in spite of the emptiness of the Chamber, I shall be very much more controversial.
On Tuesday, 13th June, of this year 61 streets in the centre of London were closed for about an hour and a half in the middle of a working day. They included Whitehall, Victoria Street, Grosvenor Place and a number of other main traffic streets and squares. The occasion of this closing was the State visit of the Grand Duke and Duchess of Luxembourg. Something similar occurred on the occasion of the visit of Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands on 11th April and will occur again on the occasion of the State visit, which I understand is to take place in October, of the President of the Federal Republic of Germany.
1938 From my record nobody would accuse me of being an inhospitable little Englander. I welcome visits from Heads of State, and even more from Heads of Governments, when they see us as we are and have personal discussions with all sorts of people—which are no doubt valuable to statesmen. Nor, like one or two of my hon. Friends, am I a Republican. I support our constitutional monarchy, not only for the dignified part which it plays in the constitution but also for the historical reasons by which it provides us with a better basis for the stability of our political system than could be provided by any other means. What I saw on the day in question, however, seems to me completely and utterly out of keeping with the present economic condition of this country and its political situation in the world.
I read in The Times—which quaintly continues to devote half a page to Court news of interest to no one, probably not even to the Court itself, and the doings of a small class of people of interest to nobody but a few snobs—that at Victoria Station there was a guard of honour of the 2nd Battalion Cold-stream Guards, accompanied by a band and corps of drums.
As I was walking down Victoria Street the Royal procession passed. The streets as I passed down them—and, I expect, the others, too—were lined with what I imagine was a fairly large proportion of the units of the British Army still available in this country. The procession was led by a Sovereign's Escort of the Household Cavalry in full regalia and consisted of seven carriages, each equipped with uniformed flunkeys, followed by two motor cars.
The crowds, which it appeared to me were forced to line the streets because they were unable to cross them, viewed the show without enthusiasm but, as it seemed to me, with apathetic acceptance. What is more, the Press takes very little interest in these affairs, although it is true that on this occasion at any rate it published some reports and photographs in the inside pages. But it tells me that there is no interest in them and that perhaps the only reason for publishing them is the pressure which has been brought to bear recently by the Foreign Office that the Press has not taken sufficient notice of these State occasions.
1939 On the occasion in question I had just come from the House where I had been having discussions with friends about the economic condition of the country—rather depressing discussions, as a matter of fact—and I was soon to learn that the balance of trade had fallen. The figures showed a deficit of £43 million, the fourth successive deficit in the year. Moreover, there was evidence that the balance of payments total was rapidly declining and that we were very quickly running into sterling trouble.
We had a debate on these matters yesterday, and few people can doubt that the country is suffering from a deep loss of confidence. There is no sense of direction and there is a growing anxiety about inflation that I have never known before, amounting in some cases to almost a sort of hysteria. Moreover, although I have been active in politics for very many years, not since the 'thirties have I felt the people more socially divided.
In those circumstances, how can we expect the young people who watched that exhibition of operatic flummery, which was no doubt suitable in the era of our nineteenth century Imperial power, to believe that our political leaders have realistically faced up to Britain's true position in the world today? What questions are they likely to ask themselves? First, they might ask about the appalling cost and the waste of resources in closing so many streets. And it is not only a question of the streets that are themselves closed. The effects of their closing spread like a river flood behind a dam, so that vast traffic jams extend outwards over a large part of London. I suppose that all of us have friends who complain bitterly how on these occasions they are unable to get to their appointments. I wonder whether the Under-secretary has ever made any estimate of the cost of carrying out these activities three or four times a year.
Even more important, in my opinion, than the direct physical cost is the psychological effect of encouraging an attitude of nostalgic complacency, of looking backwards to our past instead of forward to the very difficult future we have ahead.
The hon. Gentleman may have read an article by Joe Rogaly, a very percipient 1940 journalist, in the Financial Times on Tuesday in which he described the fears which people have at the present time about the future of the country and the awful vision that some of them have of this country as another Spain or Portugal—shabby, genteel, and dependent for any sense of national dignity on remembrances of past glory and the income from the tourist trade.
As I said at the beginning, I welcome these visits from our foreign visitors but I am sure that our visitors—who are as well informed as, if not better informed than, many in this country of our true economic and political strength—would be equally happy if they were to be received with less pomp and ceremony but with equal warmth.
§ 4.19 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane)I am glad that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has raised this subject because it is right and very opportune at this time of year that the House should consider it. I accept very much the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has spoken, making clear that he is not raising the subject in any republican sense or with any disrespect to our own Royal Family. It is much better that we should discuss the matter on that basis.
It is a question, surely, of striking a balance between the considerations the hon. Member has mentioned and other considerations to which I do not think he did enough justice, but some of which I hope to touch on in replying to him.
In the few minutes available, I should like to do three things. First, I should like to say something about State visits in general. It was to this that the hon. Member mainly directed his remarks. Secondly, I should like to remind the hon. Member and the House of the normal arrangements that are made for State visits to London. Thirdly, I should like to say something about the particular occasion that gave rise to this debate, which was the visit of the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg on 13th June.
I come first to State visits generally. In spite of what the hon. Member said, I still believe that, with their colour and pageantry, these States drives not only fulfil an international purpose which is 1941 still important but also give pleasure to a great many people. They have always been part of our national life. Another point which the hon. Member might have mentioned and which seems still important is that the ceremonial connected with these visits is a gesture of respect which we ought to pay to a distinguished visitor when we invite him to this country.
As the hon. Member knows, the proper ceremonies for welcoming the Head of a friendly State on his arrival in Britain on an official visit are governed by international protocol, and I believe it is the custom in nearly every country that a visit of this kind should begin with a State drive through the streets of the capital. Here I stress the reciprocity aspect which I think the hon. Member overlooked. It is a question not merely of what we may do in this country on occasions of this kind but of the corresponding courtesies and respect which are accorded to Her Majesty's the Queen and other members of our Royal Family when they travel abroad. Certainly our intention is that the visitor, when he comes, should see something of the capital, and that in turn the citizens of the capital should have the chance of seeing and welcoming their guest.
Despite what the hon. Member said, I believe that these drives are appreciated by many Londoners and by people from the provinces and from overseas. My impression on 13th June was slightly different from that gained by the hon. Member. As it happened, I was in Whitehall at the time. I felt much more warmth than the hon. Member seems to have felt in Victoria Street. Perhaps that is a matter for argument.
At any rate, we have always taken pride in this kind of occasion in Britain, and it would be a pity if the traditional drives through London for visiting Heads of State, which are in any case comparatively rare—I shall revert to that in a moment—were entirely discontinued. I remind the House that these State visits to London and ceremonial drives in London now take place only when it is the distinguished visitor's first visit to this country; otherwise, the more normal venue now is Windsor. It was at Windsor, as the hon. Member mentioned, that Her Majesty Queen Juliana of the Netherlands was welcomed in April.
1942 The hon. Member mentioned the possible irrelevance of ceremonial of this kind to the present situation today, and the perhaps critical feelings of young people on occasions of this kind. Again I remind him that we are discussing a matter of two hours or so in a visit which normally lasts for three or four days. As the hon. Member will know, on later occasions during a visit—I think that the visit earlier this month was typical of the normal pattern of events for such visits—our guests not only make this initial ceremonial drive through London but carry out a very full programme of visits elsewhere outside London, to industrial plants, schools and so on. Our visitors see as much of the life of this country as can be arranged during the few days they are here; not as it may have been nostalgically in the past, but as it is in 1972. That is the other side of the picture which I suggest that the House should keep in mind, as well as the particular events that happened in London during the first one or two hours of the visit. So much for the general question of visits.
I now remind the House of what usually happens in London when visits take place. I am not trying to minimise the inconvenience to the public, which the hon. Member illustrated—and of which I am very well aware—by describing the number of streets which were closed.
It may be helpful if I summarise what is usually done and why it has to be done. Normally, State visitors arrive in London during the morning, whenever possible on a Tuesday. The State drive then takes place outside the rush hours and lasts for only about 20 minutes. So the dislocation of traffic is kept to the absolute minimum. Usually, the visitor arrives by air at Gatwick Airport and travels by train to Victoria Station, where he is met and welcomed by Her Majesty the Queen. The Royal Party then enters the State carriages which, with their escorts, go by way of Victoria Street, Parliament Square, Whitehall, Trafalgar Square and The Mall to Buckingham Palace.
This is the traditional route, and I believe that it is still an appropriate one, because it takes our visitors past two of our most important historical buildings—Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament—shows them Whitehall, which 1943 is the centre of Government administration, and then takes them via Trafalgar Square up The Mall to Buckingham Palace. I believe, again in spite of what the hon. Gentleman said, that the drive is recognised to be one of the highlights of the total programme for these visits and it gives the visitor an important first impression of this country, which we hope is a favourable one.
The arrangements are the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. They require the closure of streets, or parts of streets, and traffic diversions while the drive is in progress and for a short period before and after it. The regulations the Commissioner makes are made under powers conferred on him by the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839. He attempts to limit the number and duration of street closures to the minimum necessary to ensure the success of the drive, having proper regard to security and the safety of everyone using the roads.
In making these arrangements, the Commissioner has to close the main streets on the processional route and in the neighbourhood of Buckingham Palace and the point of first arrival, which is usually Victoria Station, together with some other streets which may be needed for assembling the troops who take part in the procession or who line the route.
In consequence of that, it is also necessary to restrict traffic in streets, or parts of streets, leading to the procesional route and to divert traffic which would normally use the closed or restricted streets. In order to do all this, the usual practice is to introduce temporary one-way systems, and waiting has to be restricted as far as may be necessary so that the streets concerned can absorb the traffic that is diverted. The consequence naturally is that a large number of streets—it is certainly a large number when one is counting them up and looking at the list—is temporarily closed or restricted, but often as regards only a short part of their length.
I turn, finally, to the events of 13th June, because I believe that the House will want some account of what happened on the occasion of the visit of the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg. As my hon. and learned Friend 1944 said in his reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question on 21st June, a number of streets or parts of streets, a list of which was given in the Official Report, had to be closed to traffic, some from 11.35 a.m. and others from just before 12 noon.
The procession started from Victoria Station at 12.40 p.m. After it had passed the streets were re-opened as quickly as possible. Victoria Street and Grosvenor Place were reopened to traffic at 1.3 p.m., Whitehall and adjacent streets at 1.6 p.m., The Mall at 1.30 p.m., and every street concerned was open for use again by 1.38 p.m. In addition to these street closures, the police initiate done-way systems in a number of streets to assist the movement of traffic.
There was inevitably some congestion in the areas surrounding the route. I understand that the worst delays, not unexpectedly, were at each end of Whitehall and near Westminster Bridge and Pall Mall. However, the Commissioner tells me that the traffic was kept moving throughout the whole operation and that things quickly returned to normal once the streets re-opened. I understand, too, that the Commissioner received very few complaints from members of the public.
I have gone into this matter in some detail because, although the hon. Member did not make much of this—he was talking about rather broader aspects of State visits—it is important to use this opportunity to put on record exactly why the police have to make the arrangements they do and the length of time in which abnormal arrangements for traffic movement and the movement of pedestrians have to be enforced.
Returning to the main burden of what the hon. Gentleman said, I do not believe that this is an occasion of nostalgia, though some of the trimmings may give some people that impression. I regard it more as part of the continuing pattern of our international relations—the visits that our Sovereign makes to other countries and the corresponding visits here. It is a matter not only of what the public see, and the ceremonial side of this, which was the point raised by the hon. Member, but of the opportunity which these occasions give for meetings and discussions between diplomats and other people concerned, and, not least important—what I tried to stress earlier on—the programme which is much less 1945 publicised but which is just as, if not more than, important; namely, the opportunity for our visitors to get away from London and, according to programmes drawn up to suit their own preferences, see as much as they can in the time available of the everyday life of the country outside London in all its aspects.
In spite of the criticisms, I believe that the value to the country of occasional State visits—and I stress how occasional they are—the value in terms of diplomacy, the pleasure they give and the spread of international understanding, outweigh the disadvantages—for example, the disadvantages, which I acknowledge, in the shape of temporary traffic dislocation in the capital.
I wish to conclude by stressing that the police have always done their best, and will continue to do so, to keep down to the minimum the inconvenience to the people of London—pedestrians, road users and others—and to keep a balance between the interests concerned on occasions such as these.
This is also an opportunity to pay tribute to the police as part of the summer scene in London. I do not think that any of us going about our business in this House and going about the central 1946 parts of London can fail to be aware of the increase year by year in the number of visitors to the capital from all parts of Britain and from all over the world. Day after day during this time the Metropolitan police do a superb job, by their friendliness, their help to individuals and their efforts to keep the life of London flowing and its traffic moving.
Whatever may be hon. Members' views about the other considerations that the hon. Member mentioned, we should at least acknowledge how well the police take in their stride a number of summer events in London, not merely State visits, and they do all this with the greatest efficiency.
I thank the hon. Member for raising this matter. I hope that on some other occasion we can debate some of its wider aspects. But I assure the hon. Gentleman on the rather narrower point of inconvenience and the closing of London streets that the Commissioner of Police and his staff will bear in mind carefully all that has been said today when they make arrangements for future visits of this kind.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Five o'clock.