New front door to House of Lords cost £9.6m... but doesn't work
A security officer had to be permanently stationed at the door to press a button to open it, which one peer calculated was costing £2,500 each week.
It also emerged the cost of the work spiralled by nearly 60% from the original estimate of £6.1m.
The Lord Speaker has now written to independent crossbencher Lord Morse, who led the National Audit Office for a decade, to investigate the £9.6m door debacle.
In his letter, Lord McFall of Alcluith, who chairs the House of Lords Commission that oversees the running of the site, said: "The commission identified that it was unclear how many issues were due to manufacturing and installation failures and how many were due to issues with the initial identification of requirements and subsequent need for alterations.
"Additional information will be needed to understand the failures, including information on costs - both how the initial project figure of £6.1m was arrived at and the increase to the current total of £9.6m, and any unanticipated additional costs such as increased staffing to manage and operate the entrance.
"It will be important to assess the quality of the decision-making in establishing the project and the ways in which the evidence provided for the specifications of the new entrance were tested to ensure they took account of user requirements."
He added: "The problems that have arisen around delivery of the new entrance pose larger questions about effective programme delivery, including capability within parliamentary departments."
Speaking at Westminster, senior deputy speaker Lord Gardiner of Kimble, who also sits on the commission, said: "It is unacceptable that the Peers' Entrance does not operate as it should. The commission has directed urgent work to resolve this."
He added: "The cost to remedy defects will not be borne by the House and will be met by Parliament's contractors."
Former Tory minister Lord Robathan said: "I do not hold the senior deputy speaker responsible for this scandal, but it is a scandalous waste of public money."
Demanding to know who was responsible "by name", he said: "It is now nearly £10m for a door that does not work. Somebody accountable should be identified and should perhaps resign for this terrible waste of public money."
Tory peer Lord Hayward said: "The senior deputy speaker told us the total cost, but the staff manning that door, calculated on the written answer he provided to me, are costing £2,500 per week. That cost has to be borne by someone."
In response, Lord Gardiner said: "On the issue of the number of people involved in the manual use of the door while it is being repaired and made usable, I am assured that they are within the existing complement of members of staff."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Analysis: Will Labour's 10 year plan for the NHS succeed?
As Sir Keir Starmer unveiled his government's 10-year plan for the NHS to a room of journalists and health staff, the prime minister set out a hopeful vision for the future of the service. The NHS is going to be one of Labour 's biggest gambles and, as the second largest area of government spend, one of its most expensive bets. The prime minister, hot off a tumultuous 24 hours over his government's welfare bill, appeared confident this new plan to save the NHS would work and achieve the improvement last seen by his Labour predecessors in the 2000s. But experts were clear that there is little new in it - in terms of ideas - and warned it lacks much of the necessary detail to make any real judgement over its success. The respected Institute of Economic Affairs accurately described the plan as 'mostly a reaffirmation of long-running policy goals…things that their predecessors and their predecessors' predecessors would also have said.' Sarah Woolnough, chief executive for think tanks the King's Fund, told The Independent: 'I think the plan lacks some of the detail around the house, and for people to believe in it, I think there's a huge consensus. This is the right direction of urgently need more details on how and why it will be different this time?' Jacob Lant, chief executive for charity National Voices, pointed out that it isn't necessarily a bad thing that the plan rehashes past policies - if they are good ones. He pointed out that the focus on the patient's voice is a step change to what has come before: 'Some new proposals on deciding hospitals' funding levels based on patients' experience, good and bad, are rooted in the right idea.' But he too pointed out the plan does not spell out what outcomes will be measured. What will and won't work? The neighbourhood health centres proposed in the plan – there will be around 200 across the country – will require a number of components to work, including the investment and staffing to flow to them. The problem is that when winter or a crisis hits, the NHS has always struggled to divert these resources. Much of what the 10-year plan banks on in its bid to save the NHS is rooted in the use of technology, most prominently AI and an all-singing, all-dancing NHS app. Several promises on the NHS App include that by 2028, it will be a 'full front door to the entire NHS' and act as a 'doctor in my pocket' for patients. The app should also give people access to a single patient record, choose a preferred provider to have their treatment, manage medicines and manage appointments for children. The expanded use of AI features prominently, including 'Ambient AI' which can record patients and health professional appointments and put notes directly into care records. This is sold as a way to unburden clinicians. On tech, Ms Woolnagh said: 'They are clearly really going for it on tech and I do welcome that because the NHS app is getting better, but a pretty slow pace and it has to be the way one of the major ways that we drive for form you just think about how the NHS compared to every other sort of service we use in our life It's quite frankly embarrassing that is still paper but whether it stacks up I think the jury is out.' One issue in the expansion of health tech is health leaders being 'bombarded' by medical tech companies trying to sell them new devices – how do we know which are quality tools and which aren't? The single patient record is an issue that successful government policies have grappled with, one barrier being that those who hold the data have been reluctant to let it go. However, if the government were successfully able to fulfil this, it would be very important to patients and could drastically improve their experience. What is it missing? The plan has some very big omissions, the key ones being workforce numbers, costing, and, as usual, social care. The document appears to be thin on ambitions around mental health services – the two main points are mental health A&Es and the further rollout of mental health teams in schools. The main nod to the workforce, outside of 1,400 GPs, is an admission that there will be fewer staff than projected in the long term, as the workforce plan published in 2023 under the former government. The King's Fund chief pointed out the omission of the number of staff needed to deliver the plan was, in one sense, welcome honesty from the government over the lack of money to pay for the workforce. However, she warned, 'Too often the workforce follows the main plan, but who is going to deliver this plan?' she said. Without workforce details, the plan requires the government's 'bets to come off', such as those around technology freeing up staff time. Experts speaking with The Independent also said it is short on detail about prevention ambitions, which touch on tabacco, junk food and a 'moonshot' on weight-loss. Ms Woolnagh said: 'I think that the measures they have talked about are welcome and I think, for example, it's easy to dismiss because tobacco and vapes don't feel terribly new. It's easy not to give it the kind of due it should have, but it's a big step.'It's a big deal, so they are welcome. I think taken together, this doesn't represent the radical mission that we were promised, and if you think the headline ambition in the government's manifesto was half the gap in healthy life expectancy between the wealthiest and most deprived.' Overall, much of the verdict on this plan rests on the additional detail needed, and so the jury is out on whether this will be Labour's shining achievement and finally deliver reform for the
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Disraeli should be on our banknotes. Sadly he won't be
The Bank of England has asked the public's help in designing its new bank notes and suggesting which historial figures should grace them. Having worked as a professional historian for over 40 years and as the author of over 100 books, I venture that I am rather well qualified to offer advice. Indeed I was the historical adviser to the Royal Mail for the set of stamps they issued to mark the millennium. There is one standout candidate who should be honoured by the Bank of England: Benjamin Disraeli. His head on a banknote would be very welcome. It would be a true celebration of Britain's almost unparalleled genius for integration. Disraeli was a highly talented man of Jewish descent, born way outside the purlieux of the elite. This outsider became party leader, prime minister and Peer of the Realm – the Earl of Beaconsfield. A politician able to write effective novels about his country and national heritage, Disraeli believed in and sought to implement modernisation and continuity. He was Edmund Burke transposed into power and policy. Disraeli also helped save British politics from the course that was to wreck so much of Europe in the first half of the twentieth century, that of blood and soil conservatism counterpointed by socialism. Instead, his was a conservatism that rested on the values of an imperial community and a politics of prudence. Moreover, in contrast to William Gladstone's grim, humourless self-righteous Puritanism for the people – think Gordon Brown plus a sideline in assisting fallen women – Disraeli had elan, style and sympathy. Disraeli represented Britain when it was great, tackled international problems with aplomb, and kept the ship of state proudly and powerfully afloat. That all explains why there is no chance Disraeli will go on a banknote. The reasons tell us much about our decline, and loss of sound purpose. The fact is that the new inclusiveness, the politics of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion or DEI, clearly does not apply to Jews any more – if it ever did. DEI is generally thought to permit discrimination against just two groups: white people, especially middle-aged males, and Jews. Disraeli also suffers as a Conservative, indeed the founder of modern Conservatism, for that is not a heritage that is now acceptable in the ' never kissed a Tory' age. It will not help that the great statesman's new biography will be by Andrew Roberts who is a Tory Peer as well as the country's ablest public historian. Recognition of Disraeli will also be rejected due to the prevailing modern opinion that Britain before the appearance of modern socialism was a vicious colonialist oppressor, monstrously cruel both to its own people and any others with whom it dealt. We see this constantly, as with the pejorative use (this occurred in the Commons just this week) of the word 'Dickensian'. The past has always been contentious, but I did not have these problems when advising the Royal Mail just 25 years ago. Since then almost everything prior to 1945 has been peeled away and thrown aside. We all suffer from this. Disraeli would never have made this mistake. He was honoured by contemporaries and should continue to be recognised and honoured today.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The BBC was right to broadcast Bob Vylan
I yield to few in my disdain for the modern BBC. Its partial and sometimes just embarrassingly bad news reporting (yes BBC Verify, we mean you), its starry-eyed inability to manage its own 'talent', and above all its discomfort in disseminating Western history or cultural tradition (see the year-on-year deterioration of the Proms), all show it has moved a long way from its founding Reithian values. So while it's always enjoyable to see the BBC embarrassed, and tempting to join the calls for its director general, Tim Davie, to step down for not pulling the plug on its Glastonbury coverage, I nevertheless don't do so. Serious business must come before transitory pleasure, and urging the BBC to censor its coverage still further seems to me to risk even bigger problems down the line. Why? Well, it's precisely because I don't have confidence in the BBC that I don't trust them to exercise any further discretion over what we can see and hear. Speech that is illegal – and that is unfortunately a very uncertain boundary nowadays, a problem in itself – is one thing. Speech that is just unpleasant is another. The supporters of the original Online Safety Bill had one go, thankfully unsuccessful, at least formally, at banning such 'legal but harmful' language. I don't want to see the BBC given a second chance to police this grey area entirely on its own authority. Now I have had the counter-argument made to me that if a band on the Glastonbury stage had embarked on a rant against criminal immigrants or Islamic dress codes the BBC would have pulled it pronto. Only anti-Semitic hatred (let's call it what it is, we know what 'death to the IDF' means) gets a pass. That's extremely likely. But it's not an argument for banning even more speech, however crude and unpleasant. It's an argument for being more robust, more able to hear unpleasant concepts, and then to judge those retailing them accordingly. Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting the BBC should actively platform racists and anti-Semites in its programming. But when people on the BBC express such opinions, the BBC shouldn't cut the feed but should let us hear them and judge them. We need to be less like children living in the Harry Potter world where certain words must not be said, and more like adults. Urging broadcasters to exercise more discretion takes us precisely in the wrong direction. The more encouragement you give the BBC to police speech, the more they will use it. They will always err on the side of caution and will always favour their own values. It is already impossible to express doubts about climate change or net zero on the BBC. There is already too much guiding of opinion, reporters telling us someone is making 'fake' or 'unfounded' claims. No. Just tell me what they said and I'll make my own mind up. And that is the second reason for my hesitation in joining the bandwagon. It's the facts that are the problem, not the reporting of the facts. If large numbers of people, otherwise respectable and presumably somewhat affluent, are prepared to chant something pretty close to 'Death to the Jews', don't we need to know that? Isn't it telling us something we ought to be aware of about our society? If 'Bob Vylan' are telling us, apparently to the audience's approval, that they've 'got the gammons on retreat' and 'we're coming for you' to take back 'land that ain't theirs', doesn't that tell us something about how well multiculturalism and integration is going? Let's face it, if the BBC had not let their feed run, none of this would be a news story. We know that because there has been almost no comment about the band Kneecap's words in support of Palestine Action, because the BBC didn't cover it . The BBC rightly reports on the anti-Semitic hate marches across our cities, and covers their disgusting posters and slogans, because we need to know about them. So, when something similar happens in front of their eyes, the right reaction is not to censor it, but to make sure we know about it. The problem is that too many people don't want to know. They prefer to say that multiculturalism is generally working well. 'Yes maybe there are a few problems but basically everyone can get along as long as we don't push it.' That is the attitude that makes it difficult to discuss the cultural consequences of mass immigration. It is the attitude that made it 'inappropriate' to dwell on the rape gangs scandal until about two minutes ago and that helped the gangs get away with it. The problem we have in this country is not too much free speech but too little. We can't face obvious problems and we hide that from ourselves by not discussing them. The BBC is comfortable with that. I'm not. I'd rather have proper, honest, news and debate, and risk people hearing 'inappropriate' comments, than everyone being frightened to open their mouths in case they upset someone. We're not far off that point now. Time to turn back.
