Open up the doors, Ma'am

This weekend sees the climax of London's Royal Jubilee. Pray God for good weather. From the humblest street party to the glitterati in Buckingham Palace Gardens, the capital will be

And when it is over? On such occasions, previous monarchs have graciously donated some boon to the people of London. They had much to give. Charles II gave St James's Park to celebrate the Restoration. The old hunting grounds of Hyde Park and Regent's Park were next to be opened to visitors. Queen Victoria offered Kensington Gardens to the "respectably clad". Royalty has given London its few real lungs. It also holds London's few palaces. Britain's Prime Minister lives in a terrace house and its Lord Chancellor in a flat. Only the Lord Mayor has somewhere grand, but the Mansion House is scandalously shut to the public.

After the financial duress of the 1981 Windsor fire, the Queen now opens Buckingham Palace for two months a year. To this has been added the Queen's Gallery designed by John Simpson. It is the best small gallery in London. Indeed, with help from Leonardo, Michelangelo, Van Dyck, Vermeer and others, it must be the most exquisite concentration of art in Europe. To the west, parts of Kensington Palace are also open, including the "Diana's Dresses" exhibition. But that is all. Meanwhile, the district of St James's contains a royal and aristocratic enclave largely hidden from public view. The palaces, staterooms, courtyards and gardens are maintained at public expense. Yet they are closed.

The Jubilee coincides with the sad deaths of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret. Now is the moment to review access to the Royal Enclave. Buckingham Palace Gardens are open this weekend. Why not leave them open? They are not the private property of the Queen. They are owned and run by the Government. The same is true of the royal houses. Considerable amounts of money are about to be spent refurbishing them. A debate on their use is appropriate.

There should be no argument. The Queen does not favour her Buckingham Palace flat. William IV hated the place and never used it, nor did Queen Victoria after Albert's death. Prince Charles is rumoured, as king, to want to move his court to Windsor. For the Palace to be open just two weeks a year is wrong and a waste of revenue. Security has become a crude dictatorship and cannot be used to oppose every proposal for wider access. Buckingham Palace could anyway be closed when the Royal Family is in residence.

I would go further. There have been four Buckingham Palaces since the 18th century. The present neo-Georgian facade is the least distinguished of them all. It offers a bland and stony face of monarchy to the nation. Sir Terry Farrell's plan to push two big arches through the facade and bring the public forward to see John Nash's courtyard beyond has much to recommend it. It would be a real gesture in democratising monarchy.

Either way, the awful barbed-wire wall round the gardens should be taken down and replaced by railings and gates. This is what previous monarchs have done to other royal parks. It is what Queen Mary did with the Royal Botanical Society's gardens, which she added to Regent's Park in 1936. There could be no more dramatic gift to London than a new 40-acre nature reserve in the heart of the West End. There is no better place for the desperately cramped Chelsea Flower Show.

The true opportunity lies with the other palaces. The move of the Prince of Wales and his establishment to Nash's Clarence House makes sense. The restoration of this run-down property is properly public expenditure and should not be a charge on his budget. The quid pro quo is the normal one for taxrelieved properties, which is public access. Not only must Clarence House be open, as is proposed, but so should the magnificent State Rooms and gardens of St James's Palace next door. There is no good reason for these places to stay closed when their occupants are not in residence.

The Government, too, has its part to play. Clarence House's neighbour, Lancaster House, was built for the Duke of York. It became the London home of the Dukes of Sutherland. "I come from my house to your palace," said an envious Queen Victoria. Today Lancaster House is wasted as a government conference centre, a use anyway compatible with regular public access.

Round the corner is a more shocking waste, Sir Christopher Wren's Marlborough House. This was closed to the public, along with Inigo Jones's chapel, to house the Commonwealth Secretariat, which could be anywhere. It could be in Nigeria. It is a Philistine abuse of a London building, as once was the Registrar-General's occupancy of Somerset House.

The Royal Enclave of Buckingham Palace and St James's Palace, with Clarence, Marlborough and Lancaster Houses, is potentially one of the finest attractions in London. It would add immensely to the openness of this part of the West End, relieving pressure on the glue pots of Westminster Abbey and the Tower of London. Removing the row upon row of hostile walls would enliven what is now a long, bleak parade from Trafalgar Square to Buckingham Palace. The cost of maintaining this enclave, I am told, is some £6 million a year. There is no reason for it not to become a money-spinner.

The Royal Family deserves sympathy in its privacy. But it has many houses outside London where it can escape the crowds of the capital. The royal enclaves of Paris, Vienna, Madrid and Scandinavia are open to the public. This is the year to put Royal London on show, to the greater glory of the monarchy.