New House of Lords front door that cost almost £10 million does not work
The project has been described as 'a complete white elephant and a disaster'.
Peers heard a member of parliamentary staff had to be permanently stationed at the door to press a button to open it.
It also emerged that the price tag of the project spiralled by nearly 60% from the original estimate of £6.1 million.
Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said it was 'completely unacceptable' to have a door that did not work properly, and she shared the frustrations, upset 'and every other adjective' members wished to use.
There was also a question over whether it would ever be fully operational, she suggested.
The bill for what has been described at Westminster as 'one of the most expensive front doors in the world' was made public after peers raised concerns that their requests for the cost of the scheme had been repeatedly stonewalled by the authorities on security grounds.
They also said they had warned from the start that the design would not work.
Members of the Lords vented their annoyance as they heard plans for commercial procurement in Parliament to be transferred into a new joint department of both Houses.
While welcoming the administrative changes, Tory former Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean pressed Lady Smith, who sits on the House of Lords Commission, over the cost of the new front door at the Peers' Entrance.
He said: 'Very senior members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it.
'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.
'Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work, as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable.
'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 other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.'
The Conservative peer added: 'I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or 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, with no-one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs.'
Tory former minister Lord Robathan said: 'If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked.'
Lady Smith said: '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.'
On the cost she said there was 'wildly exaggerated and incorrect information', adding: '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.
'The initial estimate was £6.1 million for the door. That increased because it was the request of members that it should remain open during the duration of the works when the House was sitting.
'The fact that it could not be closed off to get on with the work meant the cost increased – plus some other issues around heritage were discovered. The total cost has been £9.6 million.'
She added: 'That is high, but what is more serious is that, having spent that money, the door does not work.
'That is a huge frustration to everybody.
'One of the reasons that it is not the same as other security pods on the estate is that it has to be fully accessible for those who have mobility issues and wish to use mobility aids or wheelchairs.
'The information I have is that the work that has been ongoing to address the problems has not cost the House any more beyond that.
'However, there is a window where a decision has to be taken on whether or not it will ever be fully operational and serve the needs of this House.
'I share the frustrations, the upset and every other adjective members may wish to use.'
Lady Smith told peers: 'When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
38 minutes ago
- ITV News
Assisted dying: Safeguard for children and ban on advertising added to bill by MPs
Health professionals would not be allowed to raise the subject of assisted dying with child patients and advertising for such a service would be banned, MPs have said. The new parts to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill were voted in on Friday as a second day of debate on various amendments came to a close. It is expected the next major vote on the overall bill will take place next Friday, which could see it either fall or pass through to the Lords. Impassioned debate heard the bill described by Conservative MP Kieran Mullan as a 'deeply consequential and highly contentious piece of legislation for our society'. He argued not enough time has been allocated for debate on such a divisive issue, but health minister Stephen Kinnock said there had been more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent so far, and more than 500 amendments had been considered at committee stage earlier this year. On Friday a majority of MPs approved a new clause, tabled by Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier, to ensure medics cannot raise the topic of assisted dying with under-18s. Her separate amendment to prevent health workers from bringing up the issue with adult patients before they have raised it was voted down. The amendment on child patients was hailed as a 'first major Commons defeat' by opposition campaigners Care Not Killing which welcomed 'MPs removing the ability of doctors to raise unprompted assisted suicide with children'. A group of Labour MPs opposed to the proposed legislation called it an '11th hour rejection of the claims made about the safety of this bill' which 'proves that confidence is slipping away from it'. They also cautioned that MPs might not have a copy of the final bill by the time they vote 'on this life and death issue' next week, as some outstanding amendments will still be being considered on Friday morning. A ban on advertising assisted dying should the bill pass into law has also been approved. An amendment, by fellow Labour MP Paul Waugh, to limit exceptions on that ban did not pass. He said the ban as it stands has 'unspecified exceptions, which could make the ban itself worthless', warning online harms from ads about assisted dying on TikTok 'could be a reality without the tighter safeguards in my amendment'. A number of other amendments were passed, including a provision for assisted dying deaths to not automatically be referred to a coroner and around the regulation of substances for use in assisted dying. Other issues debated included an amendment requiring the Health Secretary to publish an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care one year after the bill passing into law. Pledging her support for the amendment, which was tabled by Liberal Democrat Munira Wilson, Kim Leadbeater said MPs should not have to choose between supporting assisted dying or palliative care as it is not an 'either/or' conversation for dying people. She said palliative care and assisted dying 'can and do work side by side to give terminally-ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days', and urged MPs to support 'all options available to terminally ill people'. Ms Wilson's amendment is supported by Marie Curie, which said it is 'desperately needed as the end-of-life care system is in crisis, with huge gaps in services and a lack of NHS leadership on this vital part of our health and care system'. It is expected that this amendment will be voted on next Friday. One MP, who became emotional as she recalled the death of her husband who she said had been 'in extreme pain' with terminal cancer, urged her colleagues to 'mind our language' after words like 'murder' were used. Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden, whose husband died of oesophageal cancer, said it is 'so wrong' to use such language. She said: 'This is about helping people die in a civilised way and helping their families not go through a horrendous experience of watching a loved one die in agony.' The beginning of Friday's session saw MPs add a new opt-out clause to the bill. The amendment, meaning no person including all health and social care professionals, can be obliged to take part in assisted dying had been debated and approved last month, but has now been formally added to the bill. The bill passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 during a historic vote in November which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying. Demonstrators both for and against a change in the law once again gathered outside Parliament to make their views known on the bill. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying which is in favour of a change in the law, said: 'Our country is closer than ever before to the safe, compassionate, and tightly regulated assisted dying law that so many people want, from all walks of life and every part of the country.' But former MP Caroline Ansell, from Christian Action Research and Education (Care), which opposes assisted dying, urged parliamentarians to vote against the bill. She said: 'It is irredeemably flawed in principle and in detail. Parliament should close the door to assisted suicide and focus on truly compassionate and life-affirming forms of support.' As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Benn defends collaboration with Irish Government over legacy issues
Mr Benn was responding after Gavin Robinson branded the UK Government minister as 'foolish and hapless' in relation to his handling of efforts to deal with the legacy of the Troubles. Mr Robinson claimed Mr Benn's actions amounted to a 'disgraceful' attempt to 'satisfy the Irish Government'. The Northern Ireland Secretary was asked about the remarks as he attended a meeting of the British Irish Council in Newcastle, Co Down on Friday. 'I make no apology at all for trying to work with the Irish Government, because the lesson, indeed exemplified by the Good Friday Agreement, is we make most progress when we work together,' he said. 'And that is what I'm determined to do in the interests of truth and reconciliation and, finally, giving answers to families who have suffered so much.' Mr Robinson's hard-hitting statement on Friday morning came amid mounting expectation that the two governments will soon set out an agreed framework for addressing legacy issues related to the Northern Ireland conflict. Also responding to the DUP leader's criticism, Irish premier Micheal Martin and deputy premier Simon Harris both moved to defend Mr Benn as they praised his efforts to work with their Government to try to resolve outstanding issues around unsolved murder cases and families who continue to seek truth and justice for lost loved ones. They also rejected Mr Robinson's assertion that the Dublin government has adopted a 'scandalous approach to legacy' in failing to rigorously investigate and provide answers on atrocities with a cross-border dimension. The DUP leader made his statement after Mr Benn announced the appointment of a chair to lead a public inquiry into the 1989 loyalist murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane. Mr Robinson believes the Finucane case is indicative of a government approach that sees the 'distasteful elevation' of some high-profile cases while countless other victims still await answers with no prospect of public inquiries. The DUP leader claimed 'Hapless Hilary' was pursing this stance while continuing to keep private any details on what he was negotiating with the Irish Government. 'The Irish Government have knowledge of and influence upon UK legacy plans, yet Northern Ireland victims, veterans and Parliamentarians are kept in the dark by the Secretary of State without so much as a blush on his face,' he said. 'Not for the first time, he advances a one-sided, partisan approach to the politics of Northern Ireland.' Since taking office last year, the Labour Government has pledged to repeal and replace some of the provisions of the contentious Legacy Act that was introduced by the last Conservative government, and bring forward a revised framework for dealing with cases linked to the Troubles. The Irish Government has been involved in the process, and political leaders in Dublin have said intensive engagement is ongoing to see if a 'landing zone' can be arrived at. The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 halted scores of civil cases and inquests into Troubles deaths and also offered conditional immunity to perpetrators of conflict-related crimes in exchange for their co-operation with a new investigatory and truth recovery body. The Act was opposed by all the main political parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish government and many victims' representative groups. In 2023, the Irish government initiated an interstate legal case against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights, claiming the Legacy Act breached the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case remains active, with ministers in Dublin wanting to see how Labour resolves its concerns over the legislation before any decision is taken to withdraw the action. Mr Benn told reporters in Newcastle that it was incumbent on all political leaders to finally secure agreement on legacy. 'Legacy is the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement,' he said. 'It was the issue which the Good Friday Agreement, which achieved so much, was unable to take forward. 'And I would simply say we, all of us, as politicians, as leaders, have a responsibility to try and find a way forward so that we can bring truth and justice for everyone, in particular for the families who, after decades, are still waiting for answers as to what happened to their loved ones when they were murdered.' At the press conference after the BIC, Mr Martin made a point of backing Mr Benn's stance. 'I firstly want to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his honesty, his determination in the way he has pursued this issue of legacy, and indeed many other issues since he became Secretary of State,' he said. 'And we have welcomed his very open and determined approach. I would never question his bona fides in doing the very best for the people of Northern Ireland, and in terms of ensuring a very strong relationship between British and Irish Governments.' Mr Harris, who also attended the BIC summit, said the Governments were 'close to a way forward on legacy'. The Tanaiste added: 'And what I would say to Gavin, respectfully, and I said this to him when I met him, the country that I represent will play our part as well in relation to legacy, and we've shown that already on a number of occasions, and we will absolutely in any legacy framework want to make sure that all victims, all families, regardless of where on the island of Ireland an atrocity occurs, can get answers, can get truth, and can, of course, get justice where possible.' DUP deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly echoed the sentiments expressed by her party leader as she answered questions on the controversy following the BIC. 'I think there's a lot to be critical about in terms of the approach to legacy by the Secretary of State,' she said. Ms Little-Pengelly said many of the issues Mr Benn was considering related to matters that were devolved to Stormont. She added: 'For our part, we are absolutely clear that all victims should get access to justice. All victims should feel very clearly in our system that their loved ones mattered equally. 'Unfortunately, we've had a number of announcements on part of legacy, but not on the rest, and that leaves many victims and survivors concerned about what's happening in relation to that.'
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Ban on advertising and safeguard for child patients added to Assisted Dying Bill
The new parts to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill were voted in on Friday as a second day of debate on various amendments came to a close. It is expected the next major vote on the overall Bill could take place next Friday, which could see it either fall or pass through to the Lords. Impassioned debate heard the Bill described by Conservative MP Kieran Mullan as a 'deeply consequential and highly contentious piece of legislation for our society'. He argued not enough time has been allocated for debate on such a divisive issue, but health minister Stephen Kinnock said there had been more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent so far, and more than 500 amendments had been considered at committee stage earlier this year. On Friday a majority of MPs approve a new clause, tabled by Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier, to ensure medics cannot raise the topic of assisted dying with under-18s. Her separate amendment to prevent health workers from bringing up the issue with adults patients before they have raised it was voted down. The amendment on child patients was hailed as a 'first major Commons defeat' by opposition campaigners Care Not Killing which welcomed 'MPs removing the ability of doctors to raise unprompted assisted suicide with children'. A group of Labour MPs opposed to the proposed legislation called it an '11th hour rejection of the claims made about the safety of this Bill' which 'proves that confidence is slipping away from it'. They also cautioned that MPs might not have a copy of the final Bill by the time they vote 'on this life and death issue' next week, as some outstanding amendments will still be being considered on Friday morning. A ban on advertising assisted dying should the Bill pass into law has also been approved. An amendment, by fellow Labour MP Paul Waugh, to limit exceptions on that ban did not pass. He said the ban as it stands has 'unspecified exceptions, which could make the ban itself worthless', warning online harms from ads about assisted dying on TikTok 'could be a reality without the tighter safeguards in my amendment'. A number of other amendments were passed, including a provision for assisted dying deaths to not automatically be referred to a coroner and around the regulation of substances for use in assisted dying. Other issues debated included an amendment requiring the Health Secretary to publish an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care one year after the Bill passing into law. Pledging her support for the amendment, which was tabled by Liberal Democrat Munira Wilson, Kim Leadbeater said MPs should not have to choose between supporting assisted dying or palliative care as it is not an 'either/or' conversation for dying people. She said palliative care and assisted dying 'can and do work side by side to give terminally-ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days', and urged MPs to support 'all options available to terminally ill people'. Ms Wilson's amendment is supported by Marie Curie, which said it is 'desperately needed as the end-of-life care system is in crisis, with huge gaps in services and a lack of NHS leadership on this vital part of our health and care system'. It is expected that amendment could be voted on next Friday. One MP, who became emotional as she recalled the death of her husband who she said had been 'in extreme pain' with terminal cancer, urged her colleagues to 'mind our language' after words like 'murder' were used. Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden, whose husband died of oesophageal cancer, said it is 'so wrong' to use such language. She said: 'This is about helping people die in a civilised way and helping their families not go through a horrendous experience of watching a loved one die in agony.' The beginning of Friday's session saw MPs add a new opt-out clause to the Bill. The amendment, meaning no person including all health and social care professionals, can be obliged to take part in assisted dying had been debated and approved last month, but has now been formally added to the Bill. The Bill passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 during a historic vote in November which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying. Demonstrators both for and against a change in the law once again gathered outside Parliament to make their views known on the Bill. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying which is in favour of a change in the law, said: 'Our country is closer than ever before to the safe, compassionate, and tightly regulated assisted dying law that so many people want, from all walks of life and every part of the country.' But former MP Caroline Ansell, from Christian Action Research and Education (Care), which opposes assisted dying, urged parliamentarians to vote against the Bill. She said: 'It is irredeemably flawed in principle and in detail. Parliament should close the door to assisted suicide and focus on truly compassionate and life-affirming forms of support.' As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
