Latest news with #LordMorse
Sky News
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
New front door to House of Lords cost £9.6m... but doesn't work
A former spending watchdog has been asked to investigate after a new front door was installed at the House of Lords that cost nearly £10m and does not 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."
The Independent
02-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Ex-spending watchdog called in to probe £10 million Lords front door ‘scandal'
A former public spending watchdog has been asked to investigate the installation of a new front door to the House of Lords that cost nearly £10 million and does not work. The Peers' Entrance project has been branded 'a scandalous waste' of taxpayers' money and led to calls for those responsible to resign. The Lord Speaker has now written to independent crossbencher Lord Morse, who led the National Audit Office for a decade, to look into the £9.6 million debacle. Parliament has previously heard that a security officer had to be permanently stationed at the door to press a button to open it. One peer has calculated this was costing £2,500 per week. It also emerged that the price tag for the work spiralled by nearly 60% from the original estimate of £6.1 million. The fiasco has raised questions over lessons to be learned for the long-delayed restoration of the Palace of Westminster, which is forecast to cost billions of pounds. In his letter to Lord Morse, 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 £6.1 million was arrived at and the increase to the current total of £9.6 million, 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.' Tory former 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 £10 million for a door that does not work. Somebody accountable should be identified and should perhaps resign for this terrible waste of public money.' Conservative 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.' Responding, 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.'
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ex-spending watchdog called in to probe £10 million Lords front door ‘scandal'
A former public spending watchdog has been asked to investigate the installation of a new front door to the House of Lords that cost nearly £10 million and does not work. The Peers' Entrance project has been branded 'a scandalous waste' of taxpayers' money and led to calls for those responsible to resign. The Lord Speaker has now written to independent crossbencher Lord Morse, who led the National Audit Office for a decade, to look into the £9.6 million debacle. Parliament has previously heard that a security officer had to be permanently stationed at the door to press a button to open it. One peer has calculated this was costing £2,500 per week. It also emerged that the price tag for the work spiralled by nearly 60% from the original estimate of £6.1 million. The fiasco has raised questions over lessons to be learned for the long-delayed restoration of the Palace of Westminster, which is forecast to cost billions of pounds. In his letter to Lord Morse, 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 £6.1 million was arrived at and the increase to the current total of £9.6 million, 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.' Tory former 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 £10 million for a door that does not work. Somebody accountable should be identified and should perhaps resign for this terrible waste of public money.' Conservative 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.' Responding, 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.'
The Independent
28-01-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Employers' national insurance rise ‘straw that breaks camels back', Lords told
A rise in employer national insurance could be the 'straw that breaks the camel's back' for businesses, a former head of the spending watchdog has said. Crossbench peer Lord Morse, former head of the National Audit Office, warned that 'not all big businesses have equally broad shoulders' as he said the Government had not considered the 'differential damage' of the move. Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a hike to employer national insurance contributions (NIC) in the autumn budget, with the aim of raising around £25 billion a year. Lord Morse told peers: 'Employer national insurance has no direct relationship to that employer's profitability, and thus to that employer's ability to pay more tax. 'If an employer happens to be in an industry that habitually has payroll costs of a relatively high proportion of its total expenditure, it will necessarily attract a higher cost from the increase in employer national insurance, that if it had that same turnover and spent a lower percentage of its outgoing costs on payroll, but, for example, a higher amount on technology, data and other non-labour costs. 'If a business has a very substantial turnover, but relatively low margins, such as a lot of the major construction contractors…that its ability to pay more national insurance may be much less than it would be in another more profitable sector. 'Not all big businesses have equally broad shoulders. I know that's a popular government expression, and some big businesses may find the additional NIC charge very much more damaging than others. It may even be the final straw that breaks the camel's back, in some cases. 'Different industries form larger or smaller proportions of economic activity in different areas of the UK, and they tend to be concentrated. 'If a high proportion of local business activity happens to be in a high payroll model of business this means that the local economy is likely to be disproportionately impacted, and we are hearing examples of that in Northern Ireland, but it's not just there. 'It's not rocket science. I'm saying I must admit, but I'm not sure that HM Government has considered these points of differential damage, if not, they should do so.' The Government's plans are detrimental in many ways, but not least the reality that many businesses will be simply unable to absorb the increased cost of national insurance contributions or the inflation-busting wage increases, but the bill still has to be paid Lord Morrow The debate on Monday evening was called by DUP peer Lord Morrow who said the Government had not given thought to the 'disproportionately negative impact' removal of agricultural property relief and increases to employer national insurance would have on Northern Ireland. He told peers: 'The Government's plans are detrimental in many ways, but not least the reality that many businesses will be simply unable to absorb the increased cost of national insurance contributions or the inflation-busting wage increases, but the bill still has to be paid, and this will be shifted onto the consumer, who will have to contend with higher prices amidst an extremely difficult time for many families across Northern Ireland. 'In Northern Ireland, the rise in the rate of national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15% will hit our agricultural sector hard.'
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Employers' national insurance rise ‘straw that breaks camels back', Lords told
A rise in employer national insurance could be the 'straw that breaks the camel's back' for businesses, a former head of the spending watchdog has said. Crossbench peer Lord Morse, former head of the National Audit Office, warned that 'not all big businesses have equally broad shoulders' as he said the Government had not considered the 'differential damage' of the move. Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a hike to employer national insurance contributions (NIC) in the autumn budget, with the aim of raising around £25 billion a year. Lord Morse told peers: 'Employer national insurance has no direct relationship to that employer's profitability, and thus to that employer's ability to pay more tax. 'If an employer happens to be in an industry that habitually has payroll costs of a relatively high proportion of its total expenditure, it will necessarily attract a higher cost from the increase in employer national insurance, that if it had that same turnover and spent a lower percentage of its outgoing costs on payroll, but, for example, a higher amount on technology, data and other non-labour costs. 'If a business has a very substantial turnover, but relatively low margins, such as a lot of the major construction contractors…that its ability to pay more national insurance may be much less than it would be in another more profitable sector. 'Not all big businesses have equally broad shoulders. I know that's a popular government expression, and some big businesses may find the additional NIC charge very much more damaging than others. It may even be the final straw that breaks the camel's back, in some cases. 'Different industries form larger or smaller proportions of economic activity in different areas of the UK, and they tend to be concentrated. 'If a high proportion of local business activity happens to be in a high payroll model of business this means that the local economy is likely to be disproportionately impacted, and we are hearing examples of that in Northern Ireland, but it's not just there. 'It's not rocket science. I'm saying I must admit, but I'm not sure that HM Government has considered these points of differential damage, if not, they should do so.' The debate on Monday evening was called by DUP peer Lord Morrow who said the Government had not given thought to the 'disproportionately negative impact' removal of agricultural property relief and increases to employer national insurance would have on Northern Ireland. He told peers: 'The Government's plans are detrimental in many ways, but not least the reality that many businesses will be simply unable to absorb the increased cost of national insurance contributions or the inflation-busting wage increases, but the bill still has to be paid, and this will be shifted onto the consumer, who will have to contend with higher prices amidst an extremely difficult time for many families across Northern Ireland. 'In Northern Ireland, the rise in the rate of national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15% will hit our agricultural sector hard.'
