Anger at parliament's £10m front door that doesn't work properly
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
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will Labour's new migrant controls stop the boats… or encourage Nigel Farage?
Maybe everyone can agree on one thing: if stopping the boats was easy, it would have been done by now. Whether the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, ever deluded herself otherwise, a year of only limited progress in the government's mission to 'smash the gangs' must have brought home to her just how intractable irregular migration is. The numbers of those crossing the Channel are as high as ever – partly because of the warm weather and calm waters, but also because the criminals who run these people-smuggling businesses are also smart and innovative. When Keir Starmer said he would bring the same legal powers and resources to the criminal gangs as had been applied to terrorism and drugs, he seemed to have forgotten that those wars are also far from over – let alone won. Will more of the same work? Cooper must hope so. She's promising another £100m for the National Crime Agency to recruit more officers, and there'll be enhanced 'detection technology' to defeat the people traffickers. Making those distasteful online 'ads' for smuggling services is to be a specific criminal offence. Less convincingly, the government proposes to financially penalise universities where too many foreign students fail to complete their courses because they use their study visas as the first stage in an asylum application. How the university applications officers are supposed to vet all their student applicants in this way is far from clear – quite aside from the fact that the right to claim asylum is absolute and universal under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This, by the way, is why no migrant seeking refugee status can be labelled 'illegal', even though that is what was laid down in domestic law by the previous administration. So Cooper is in this for the long haul, making slow, incremental progress both at home and in cooperation with other concerned nations near and far, patiently waiting for the forces of law and order to push their investigations and prosecutions forward. Any single measure, inevitably, tends to get dismissed as hopelessly inadequate. How, it is asked, can the German authorities stop the trade in dinghies and marine engines? How will a crackdown on TikTok videos stop anyone trying to make the journey? Will the treaty with the French, agreed last month, ever be scaled up to make a real difference? Even if one gang is broken up, surely there will be more ready to take their trade? Such scepticism is entirely justified, but it is no reason to give up. Cooper's political pitch has to be that only painstakingly slow, hard work – constantly bearing down on the gangs, working through the vast asylum claim backlog, and getting other countries to take or take back the failed asylum seekers – can succeed. This dedicated effort has to be contrasted with the deceptively easy solutions promised by Reform UK. Nigel Farage, in other words, does not have the answers and would not solve the problem. Just the same as Brexit, in fact, when he also made extravagant claims about how it would solve our economic problems, and then blamed everyone else when it left the nation impoverished. Now he's blaming the migrants rather than Brussels, and his policies – little more than slogans – should be treated with extreme caution. Leaving the ECHR, for example – which he used to call 'Brexit 2.0' before Brexit 1.0 turned out to be a flop – wouldn't change a thing over in Calais. Yes, it would make claiming asylum impossible, and it would, perhaps in some cases, speed deportation and reduce spurious human rights claims by criminals. But it wouldn't stop anyone – refugee or economic migrant – from seeking a better life in the UK, and doing whatever it takes and paying any price (including loss of their own life) in the process. A policy of 'detain, deport', as so lazily tossed out by the radical right, only works if migrants continue to give themselves up. If they cannot do that, because the ECHR right to claim asylum is abolished, then they will not be willing to approach Border Force so that they can indeed be detained and then removed (somehow – again, never entirely clear to where). Instead, we will have irregular crossings turning into irregular, uncurated landings along the south coast of England. And even if the English Channel was somehow made small-boat proof, other methods would be found, such as further abuse of the visa system. Getting sent to Rwanda, say, only acts as a deterrent if you get caught in the first place. But pushing refugees and economic migrants into the grey economy and slum accommodation run by gangs really would turn them into the criminals they do not wish to be. It's not that the remedies offered by Farage, Rupert Lowe, various fascists and some Conservatives are cruel and morally shameful, which they are, but that they are impractical and costly. They're inured to personal abuse. In the words of Lowe: 'You can call me 'far-right', you can call me 'racist' – I just do not care. Detain these men, and deport these men – every single one of them.' Except it wouldn't work, for the reasons explained. Even getting the Royal Navy to attack the boats wouldn't succeed, because there are too many dinghies and too few Navy vessels (and the Navy has other things to do). The Farage/Lowe way of controlling migration is to sloganise and strike a pose, never to make a practical proposal. Labour's way is to get it done slowly but surely – grinding hard graft, with some respect for humanity, compassion for the most vulnerable, and dealing swiftly with any criminality. It just needs to be seen to be working, and it ain't easy.
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump's plan to use a British bank to target the Democrats
The elements of the story could be taken directly from a thriller: a British whistleblower with military credentials, secret meetings with top justice officials, a trail of encrypted spreadsheets allegedly linking a British bank to Iran's military and terror networks, and now, an explosive political backdrop involving President Donald Trump and his vendetta against the Democrat prosecutors who once tried to dismantle his empire. At the centre of it all is Standard Chartered, the UK's fifth-largest bank and a household name thanks to its sponsorship of Liverpool Football Club. The bank has already been fined nearly $2bn by American authorities for breaches of sanctions against Iran involving its US branch – having admitted wrongdoing for the first time in 2012 and then again in 2019. It is now facing fresh allegations, which it denies but which could yet see it forced to pay much more. According to whistleblower Julian Knight, a former RAF officer turned compliance executive at the bank, Standard Chartered's transgressions go further than previously admitted. He alleges the bank also concealed an additional $10bn in transactions involving Iranian firms carried out through its New York outpost, which it is yet to answer for. Some of the alleged transactions are said to have been linked to Iran's military, nuclear programme, and US-designated terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The bank has always denied suggestions it conducted transactions for terror groups. The alleged dealings, which are claimed to have taken place between 2008 and 2013, came after Standard Chartered had announced in 2007 that it would cease all new business with Iranian customers as Washington ramped up pressure on the Islamic Republic. Knight (who left the bank in 2011) says he and fellow whistleblower Robert Marcellus, a currency trader, discovered the supposedly hidden transactions after re-examining spreadsheets and documents provided to US authorities in the past. But when they brought the new 'evidence' to New York attorney general Letitia James's office last year, Knight claims, officials failed to act. His allegations have now been seized on by Trump, who has repeatedly clashed with James, a Democrat, in recent years. On July 27, the president used his Truth Social account to post an article by The Gateway Pundit, a Right-wing American news website, alleging the attorney general – whose slew of legal cases against Trump, including a $454m civil fraud case last year, have seen the pair repeatedly clash publicly – failed to investigate Standard Chartered despite the new trove of information presented by Knight. That followed on from a seemingly important intervention by the Department of Justice, which last month moved to review previous court decisions related to the saga. The article Trump's account promoted described the case as James's 'biggest scandal yet'. In the past, the president has also labelled the New York attorney general a 'totally corrupt politician'. Whilst James appears to be the focal point of the Trump administration's concern, it has also taken aim at his Democratic predecessors over the case – clearly viewing it as a potential Achilles heel. Kari Lake, one of the president's most trusted allies, who serves in the Trump administration as senior advisor at the US Agency for Global Media, says: 'This is a serious issue. President Trump – trying to undo the damage caused by Biden and Obama with their destructive policies toward Israel and America as well as toward the people of Iran – has put forth a maximum-pressure zero-tolerance policy blocking any funding to Iran and its terror network. 'And now a British bank who operates in the United States is accused of processing billions of illicit payments to Iran. And the New York attorney general's office led by Tish James knew about it and did nothing. 'The Fed should have spotted these payments and stopped them, but they did not. The question is was it simply ineptitude on the part of Letitia James and the Federal Reserve or were they complicit in helping the Iranian regime?' The president's political war against the Democrats threatens to drag the bank back into uncomfortable territory, six years after it was fined $1.1bn when a US criminal investigation revealed breaches of sanctions on Iran and other countries. That followed on from a damning August 2012 ruling which saw Standard Chartered forced to shell out $340m to settle claims that it had left the US financial system 'vulnerable to terrorists' by hiding transactions linked to Iran. The following month, then chancellor George Osborne is reported to have intervened on the bank's behalf amid concerns in London that American regulators might withdraw Standard Chartered's US licence over the scandal. By the end of the year, the bank had escaped prosecution and kept its US licence. Knight claims the bank's internal data shows a far deeper pattern of deception. He argues that he, Marcellus and a forensic investigator 'decloaked' Excel spreadsheets to reveal 'a vast number' of previously undetected 'concealed transactions with sanctioned Iranian entities'. He alleges these findings were presented to officials in a series of meetings last year, including with Chris D'Angelo, James's right-hand man within the New York Attorney General Office. 'They [the meetings] were held at the invitation of the NYAG. I flew to New York to be present for the first meeting. We cannot understand why these transactions were not previously disclosed by the bank to the NYAG,' Knight says. In pursuit of a payout Cynics might suggest the whistleblowers are simply looking to cash in, and that Trump's return to the White House was what they needed to turn their fortunes around. Knight and Marcellus have unsuccessfully to date pursued a payout for their whistleblowing under a federal statute which means those who expose wrongdoing can lay claim to proceeds generated by fines, if their intervention proves integral to legal action being taken. The pair's case, known as the 'Brutus litigation', argues they provided material to US law enforcement agencies that proved Standard Chartered had acted in breach of sanctions. The administrations headed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden appeared to refuse to back the whistleblowers' claims, with government agencies arguing the fines imposed on the bank were based on evidence unrelated to the material provided by Knight and Marcellus. Standard Chartered itself argues the pair have concocted 'fabricated claims' in order to seek 'personal financial gain'. But the tide may be turning under Trump, with the Department of Justice last month giving notice that it wanted to review previous decisions which effectively buried the whistleblowers' arguments. In the filings, seen by The Telegraph, the DoJ stated that it wanted a 30-day extension to 'confer internally' about the issue. Danny Alter, former general counsel at the New York Department of Financial Services, who led previous enforcement actions against Standard Chartered, says the DoJ's move was 'highly unusual' and 'suggests that there's been a significant change in the government's thinking'. 'If accurate… recently revealed evidence of the many billions of US dollars in criminal transactions that Standard Chartered allegedly conducted for Iran's military complex and terrorist proxies, like Hamas and Hezbollah, is mind boggling,' Alter says. 'It is a financial blueprint for how Iran built its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and funded global terrorism, despite years of US economic sanctions. 'You have to wonder if the enormous risks and costs of the recent US military operations to eliminate Iran's nuclear programme played a role in the government's seeming re-evaluation of Standard Chartered's case and the bank's potential liability.' Standard Chartered, for its part, remains defiant. Referring to the case brought by Knight and Marcellus, a spokesman said: 'The long-running qui tam lawsuit against Standard Chartered has been dismissed multiple times. The trial court already twice rejected the claims brought by a former employee and his associates who have for more than a dozen years sought personal financial gain through fabricated claims against the bank. 'The frivolous appeal of that rejection remains pending. The US government long ago concluded that there is no merit to the baseless accusations of sanctions and plaintiff's various arguments have been described by the courts as 'on the verge of vexatious and frivolous', 'without merit' and 'threadbare'. 'We will continue to vigorously defend against attempts to profit from fabrications and to damage our reputation.' But the DoJ's recent move may signal the case is not dead after all. Ultimately, Standard Chartered could soon yet find itself back in the spotlight - this time, not just as a defendant in a sanctions case, but as an unwitting pawn in a bitter political feud.
BBC News
9 minutes ago
- BBC News
Leicestershire's policing chief Rupert Matthews joins Reform UK
The police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire and Rutland has defected from the Conservatives to Reform Matthews has held the position since 2021 and served as an MEP for the East Midlands for the Tories between 2017 and at a press conference alongside Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, he said the "dark heart of wokeness" needed to be cut out of the criminal justice system."The self-serving, self-entitled liberal elite who have let our country down time after time are now on notice their day is almost done," he said. "Be they Conservative or Labour governments, everyone knows our politicians have failed us all. They have let this country down. They have let the British people down. Enough. Now is the time for Reform."
