Anger at parliament's £10m front door that doesn't work properly
It should have been an open and shut case: installing a new front door to help make the House of Lords more secure.
Yet peers have described the project as 'a complete white elephant and a disaster': the bill has ballooned to £9.6 million and the door still does not open properly. In March 2022, when the project was approved, it was expected to cost £6.1 million.
Contractors began an upgrade of the peers' entrance, one of the doors to the Palace of Westminster, just off Abingdon Street, in 2023. Two years later, it still requires a member of staff to be present around the clock to press a button to open it.
The Lords said the refit was so expensive because it included 'significant structural and groundworks both inside and outside the Palace, as well as the diversion of below-ground services'.
The costs rose sharply due to 'changes to the planned working pattern of the project to minimise disruption to the House', technical problems caused by the discovery of buried historic vaults in the Unesco world heritage site, and rescheduling due to unplanned ceremonial events.
The redesign has been done by DBR, a company that specialises in building restoration, and which removed the graffiti from Sir Winston Churchill's statue in Westminster and helped to restore the roof of Blenheim Palace near Oxford, where Churchill was born.
Last week, peers made clear their displeasure at the rising cost and the fact that the door was unfit for purpose, recently leaving a member who uses a wheelchair unable to get inside.
'I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work,' Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, 70, who served as a minister in John Major's cabinet, said in the Lords recently.
'I do not wish to … underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences … It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.'
Peers have made clear their displeasure at the rising costs and the fact that the door is unfit for purpose
AARON CHOWN/POOL PHOTO/AP
ALAMY
Forsyth added that peers had said the redesign would not work. 'Various members from all sides of the House protested [that]… it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable,' he said. 'We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door.'
The Labour peer Lord Berkeley, 85, said that he had been informed that this was the first time such a design had been used. 'Why should we be guinea pigs?' he asked. 'We believe in precedent here for a large number of different things, but not in being a guinea pig for a kind of door that clearly does not work. Portcullis House has doors that seem to work all right. Did no one test it first? On the question of professional indemnity, is anyone going to be found to be at fault here?'
The leader of the Lords, Baroness Smith of Basildon, responded: 'On the door itself, there are two issues, cost and operability. It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should. It is important that we are secure, so the costs of the door are very high. It is not just the security issue but also the heritage issue.'
Forsyth said the Lords authorities had repeatedly refused to tell members the total cost of the door until now, claiming that doing so could help terrorists plotting attacks.
Improving security at the peers' entrance was one of a number of recommendations put forward in a review that followed the Westminster terror attack in 2017. Sir Jon Murphy, the former chief constable of Merseyside police, was asked to look at ways to tighten perimeter security.
The House of Lords said: 'The work at peers' entrance is an important project as part of our commitment to ensure the safety and security of everyone who works on and visits the parliamentary estate. We are working with our contractors to address and resolve ongoing issues with the door at Peers' Entrance, at no extra cost to the public.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
32 minutes ago
- Times
Times letters: Britain and the tinderbox in the Middle East
Write to letters@ Sir, Sir Keir Starmer has called on Iran to 'return to the negotiating table' after the US bombed its nuclear sites. But treating Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner while it refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist only reinforces Tehran's rejectionist stance. History provides a clear road map: recognition leads to peace. Of the 164 countries that now recognise Israel, none are engaged in active warfare with it. Egypt's recognition in 1979 ended decades of conflict. Jordan's recognition in 1994 transformed enemies into sometime partners. The Abraham Accords demonstrated that recognition can unlock prosperity and co-operation even without resolving every regional grievance. Regional issues need and deserve resolution but they cannot be resolved in an environment where a significant power actively works towards the destruction of Israel. Negotiations remain preferable to conflict, but Israel needs to be involved in these talks as a recognised sovereign state. Without recognition and meaningful bilateral negotiations between Israel and Iran, the present situation will continue as a zero-sum game, which Israel simply cannot afford to lose. Tony Morcowitz Brighton and Hove Sir, When Sir Keir Starmer announced the Chagos Islands giveaway, he said that surrendering sovereignty was necessary because the UK had to be seen to uphold international law. Now he has gone on to publish statements in support of the US bombing of Iran. He is publicly supporting a flagrant breach of international law forbidding unprovoked attacks on other nations and, indeed, is speaking in defiance of advice from his attorney-general warning that any attack on Iran could be illegal. The government asserted that the international-law principles embodied by the Chagos deal would earn Britain respect in the 'global south', but in light of the UK's support for Israeli-American actions against Iran, all that the rest of the world will now observe is that Britain's commitment to international law is equivocal and inconsistent. Robert Frazer Salford Sir, International events emphasise the paucity of the UK's air defences, in particular the capability to counter attacks by ballistic missiles. Should the situation deteriorate to the extent that we are threatened, this will be critical, with Britain's best anti-missile defence platforms being six Type 45 destroyers, one of which is deployed with HMS Queen Elizabeth. Other Type 45s may or may not be available, with a number in refit, but ship-based systems are insufficient to defend the entire nation. Recent announcements on defence, from the strategic defence review through to promises to raise spending by a few percentage points in future, will do nothing to repair our non-existent integrated air defence. The government needs to act now and procure anti-ballistic systems. Group Captain Michael Norris St Austell, Cornwall Sir, In the raid on RAF Brize Norton (news, Jun 21), one of the engines on the Voyager aircraft was so badly damaged by the red paint sprayed on it by Palestine Action activists that it is said that the tanker is out of action and a new engine will cost £25 million. Surely this is nonsense: our planes are so vulnerable than an enemy would only have to drop paint over them to make them useless in war time? Brian RJ Simpson Gosport, Hants Sir, My father, Michael Beetham, was station commander of RAF Khormaksar in Aden, Yemen, in the mid-1960s, during a period of heightened tensions. As a small boy, I watched as he set off in the evenings to drive around the perimeter fence in his Land Rover. Sometimes he took me with him. He would stop and talk to personnel and inspect fences. He went on to be the longest-serving Chief of the Air Staff since Lord Trenchard, founder of the RAF. I wonder who carries out such checks these days at bases like Brize Norton? Alex Beetham Woodditton, Cambs Sir, There are many reasons why the House of Lords may not survive in its present form. Hubris is certainly one. For unnamed peers to tell The Times that they will use 'black arts' to 'kill off' the assisted dying bill and employ 'every means possible' to prevent it becoming law is hubris of the highest order (news, Jun 21). The Lords can and should seek to improve the bill through its scrutiny. That is indeed its role. But to seek fundamentally to thwart the will of the elected Commons is not. It is not just the future of the bill that will be at stake in this regard. So too will the future of an unelected second chamber. Sir Leigh Lewis Watford Sir, In just three days the concept of laws being based on Judeo-Christian principles has been removed by the House of Commons. Aborting a full-term unborn child will no longer be a criminal offence and assisting someone to kill themselves was approved. MPs have replaced a morality based on respect for life by a culture of death. Neither these changes were in the Labour Party manifesto and the House of Lords should therefore not feel constrained in refusing to endorse them. Nicholas Bennett Minister of health for Wales, 1990-92; Bromley, Kent Sir, I am horrified by the moral ambiguity demonstrated by the government. After endless debate, the third reading of the assisted dying bill has narrowly been passed, a compassionate piece of legislation that will give terminally ill people more control over their lives. By contrast, after only two hours' debate the government has amended abortion regulations to allow women to have a termination at any stage of their pregnancy, without fear of prosecution. The 24-week limit for legal abortion was set to protect viable foetuses. This amendment sanctions the murder of babies capable of leading independent lives. I hope there is sufficient wisdom among the members of the House of Lords to persuade the Commons to rethink the unethical decision they have made. Frances MacDonald Stratford-upon-Avon Sir, The reports that HS2 may now cost £100 billion came in the same week that Nice concluded the known benefits of the new Alzheimer's drugs lecanemab and donanemab do not justify the expense of funding them through the public healthcare system (news, Jun 19; letter, Jun 21). Given that the government is likely to have to make stark choices in its next budget, the choice of either cutting 30 minutes off journey times between London to Birmingham or extending the meaningful lives of thousands of people each year could not be starker. If Rachel Reeves's repeated statements that her decisions reflect the choice of the people are true, then let's ask them directly which they'd rather have. Dr Barry Johnson Sheffield Sir, Settle to Carlisle is now seen as one of the world's greatest railway journeys. However, the line started out in difficulty and there are some interesting comparisons to be made with HS2. The estimate to build the line was £2 million, but the challenges of building a route through the Pennines resulted in the cost and time to completion doubling. The line opened to freight traffic 150 years ago (passengers a year later). The final cost was about £500 million in today's money, and it took five years to build. Admittedly it is only 72 miles long (compared with 120 miles for HS2) and the hundreds of boys employed were paid half a crown (12.5p) per day. The railway today is a magnificent reminder of the vision of the Midland Railway Company, which sponsored it, and the tenacity and ingenuity of those who overcame the challenges of a hostile environment to build it. I wonder if in 150 years HS2 will be as popular — assuming of course that it is completed. Dr Bryan Gray Hunsonby, Cumbria Sir, It is nothing short of insanity that elite rugby union players are about to embark on a tour to Australia with the British & Irish Lions after another very lengthy domestic season, when there is clear evidence showing a dose-response relationship between head impacts and neurodegenerative disease. The longer and more intensely one plays contact or collision sports, the higher the risk of brain damage. The Lions tour — a gruelling and commercially driven tournament — is being promoted as a pinnacle of achievement. Where is the duty of care to players? Where are the safeguards and transparent risk disclosures? Rugby cannot continue to ignore the realities of repeated brain trauma in pursuit of nostalgia and profit. It must start putting welfare above spectacle. Alix Popham Ret'd professional rugby union player; Welsh international, 33 caps; Newport Sir, You report that the late Queen did indeed carry cash, for betting on the races (news, Jun 21). As a young journalist at The Sun in the Eighties I was sent to report on the Derby. The press box was next to the royal box and we all saw Her Majesty dash down to the front to watch a winner triumph. I was designated to ask her: 'Ma'am, did you have a bet on the winning horse?' I leaned over from the box to be faced by the back of Prince Philip, who was chatting to the Queen. My first attempt was ignored and feeling embarrassed and slightly annoyed I tried again. Philip drifted off and so I repeated the question. 'Did I what?' she replied frostily. Red-faced and sweating I stumbled through it again, when she graced me with a beautiful smile and said: 'Oh no, my dear, I never bet!' The next year a barrier was erected between the two boxes so that she would not be approached again. Muriel Freeman (née Burden) South Shields Sir, Car horns don't need to be loud to be effective (letters, Jun 17-21). When I was living in Bath in the early 1970s I drove an MGB, which I had bought from a friend. He had fitted a trio of strident air horns, but I discovered that if I pressed the button very gently the horns would emit a gasping or panting sound. Being very immature at the time I occasionally made this happen while waiting as a pretty girl crossed the road. This sometimes produced an amused response, but not always. One of the recipients of this attention, a particularly pretty girl, subsequently recognised me when we met at a party and she ticked me off for my uncouth behaviour, which I never repeated. In October we will have been married for 50 years. Richard Le Masurier Milford-on-Sea, Hants Sir, My husband was lucky enough to get ten birthday cards from me last year (letters, 18, 19 & 21). After forgetting to buy one for him I simply added 'and Wendy' to the cards he had received from other people. Wendy Rayner Huddersfield Sir, Dominic Sandbrook's article on class and how to define a gentleman (comment, Jun 21) reminded me of an events notice I saw when stationed in the British Army of the Rhine with the King's Own Scottish Borderers in the mid-60s. Those invited to a Minden Day dance were: 'Officers and their Ladies, NCOs and their Wives, and Other Ranks and their Women-Folk.' Bill Wells Wisbech, Cambs Sir, I've always felt rather proud of the fact that the Yiddish word 'mensch' means much the same as 'gentleman' but without any class implications — or gender implications either; a woman can be a mensch too. Or not, as the case may be. Margaret Lesser Bowdon, Greater Manchester Sir, Mark Twain, as is so often the case, hit the nail on the head. A gentleman, he said, is someone who knows how to play the banjo and doesn't. Dr David Bogod Nottingham Write to letters@
North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Farage plans to charge non-doms £250,000 fee which will be given to poor
On Monday, the party leader and MP for Clacton will reveal the policy which he said would 'encourage the return of wealth and talent to the United Kingdom', according to the Telegraph. The Labour Government abolished the non-dom tax status in April, which is where UK residents whose permanent home or domicile for tax purposes is outside the UK. Last year, former Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt revealed plans to scrap the tax status before successor Rachel Reeves sped up the process. Reform UK's policy would mean 'every high-net-worth newcoming (or returning leaver)' would pay a £250,000 one-off fee 'in return for a stable, indefinite remittance-style regime on offshore income and a 20-year inheritance-tax shield', Mr Farage wrote in an article for the Telegraph. All of this fee would be given to Britain's lowest-paid full-time workers through an automatic tax-free dividend via HMRC, the party leader added. In response, Labour said the policy was a 'golden ticket for foreign billionaires to avoid the tax they owe in this country'. Mr Farage wrote: 'Our policy is simple – Britain must be a place where success is celebrated, not punished with excessive taxes, crippling energy costs, or punitive inheritance levies. 'We will actively encourage the return of wealth and talent to the United Kingdom, on the clear condition that those who come here deliver immediate, visible benefits to our workers.' The plan would mean around 2.5 million 'hard-working Britons' would receive an 'annual cash bonus', the Reform UK leader claimed. He added: 'Our policy is not a 'golden visa' or a backdoor to citizenship. 'It is a one-time flat tax paid by newcomers in exchange for the certainty of a favourable tax status. 'Individuals will still be liable for all standard UK taxes on UK-sourced income, property and spending. 'But they won't be taxed on offshore income and gains for the duration of their agreed status.' A Labour spokesperson said: 'Nigel Farage can brand this whatever he wants – the reality is his first proper policy is a golden ticket for foreign billionaires to avoid the tax they owe in this country. 'As ever with Reform, the devil is in the detail. 'This giveaway would reduce revenues raised from the rich that would have to be made up elsewhere – through tax hikes on working families or through Farage's promise to charge them to use the NHS.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Reform will ensure non-doms contribute to Britain
It should come as no surprise that, over the past few decades, many of the UK's most successful and influential business minds have left the country in droves – a clear and troubling sign of national decline. Over the past 10 years, UK policy toward non-domiciled taxpayers ('non-doms') has lurched from piecemeal tightening under successive Conservative chancellors to outright abolition under the current Labour Government. The result? A record-breaking and alarming exodus of high-spending, high-tax-paying residents, leaving an estimated £7 billion yearly hole in public finances and inflicting huge collateral damage on London's position as Europe's financial centre. The social contract between the rich and the poor is at an all-time low. Public trust in the tax system has been eroded by perceptions that elites play by a different set of rules. In the past, your average Briton saw little to no benefit from the wealthy in their midst. If anything, it created greater division and hostility. Reform UK is determined to change this. We are the party of working people – the party of those with alarm clocks who get up in the morning and work hard, whether they're at the higher end of the financial scale or the lower end. Our approach is different, transparent, and designed to directly benefit the hard-working backbone of this nation. Unlike the opaque financial mechanisms of the past, where wealth seemed to vanish into hidden pots of money that ordinary people could not see, Reform UK is committed to doing things differently. We will rebuild the social contract by ensuring that every wealthy individual who wishes to move here makes a tangible contribution to Britain's lowest earners. Our policy is simple: Britain must be a place where success is celebrated, not punished with excessive taxes, crippling energy costs, or punitive inheritance levies. We will actively encourage the return of wealth and talent to the United Kingdom – on the clear condition that those who come here deliver immediate, visible benefits to our workers. Here's how it works: every high-net-worth newcomer (or returning leaver) will pay a £250,000 one-off entry contribution in return for a stable, indefinite remittance-style regime on offshore income and a 20-year inheritance-tax shield. Crucially, 100 per cent of this contribution is hypothecated to Britain's lowest-paid full-time workers, delivered automatically by HMRC as a tax-free cash dividend. This means roughly 2.5 million hard-working Britons – the grafters who keep this country running – will receive an annual cash bonus, sent directly to their bank accounts at the end of the financial year. Thanks to this policy, in a low-uptake scenario with 6,000 cards issued annually, we'll generate a £1.5 billion fund, resulting in a tax-free annual dividend of £600 per worker. In a high-uptake scenario with 10,000 cards, this could deliver a £2.5 billion fund, providing £1,000 per worker. This isn't just a number. It's money in the pockets of those who need it most, from cleaners to nurses to small-business owners. Our policy is not a 'golden visa' or a backdoor to citizenship. It is a one-time flat tax paid by newcomers in exchange for the certainty of a favourable tax status. Individuals will still be liable for all standard UK taxes on UK-sourced income, property, and spending. But they won't be taxed on offshore income and gains for the duration of their agreed status. Pay your quarter million pounds upfront, and enjoy UK residency without worldwide taxation hassles. After all, this is still the best country in the world, and many of the world's wealthy want to move here but are deterred by the economic downsides. Unlike the old, indefinite non-dom arrangement under the Tories, which lacked transparency and failed to benefit ordinary people, our solution is immediate, visible, and mutually beneficial for both newcomers and the hard-working British worker struggling to make ends meet. Unlike Labour's punitive approach, which drives wealth away, we incentivise the rich to return to Britain. Over the past decade, the number of non-dom taxpayers has plummeted from over 120,000 to fewer than 80,000. The failed approaches of both Labour and the Conservatives have cost this country billions annually. Reform UK's plan will reverse this trend, capturing revenue from global wealth, channelling funds to support the working class, and restoring London as a global powerhouse for business, finance, and investment. The driving ambition of Reform UK is to put the lives of everyday British citizens first – and this policy does exactly that. We are the party of working people, and we are building a Britain where wealth and opportunity are shared, not hoarded. By ensuring that every pound contributed by the wealthy goes directly to those who get up early and work hard, we are creating a fairer, stronger, and more prosperous nation for all.
