Ex-spending watchdog called in to probe £10 million Lords front door ‘scandal'
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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
17 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Will Trump's tax bill help or hurt you? It may depend on your income
"It's still higher-income households that are the winners, especially those who are alive today," said Kent Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model. The analysis also found the Senate's version of the tax bill, which narrowly passed on July 1, would lead to higher deficits and slower economic growth compared to its counterpart from the House. The bill heads to the House for final approval. Trump has asked for a final version on his desk and ready for signature by July 4, but acknowledged the deadline may be "very hard to do" as some House Republicans voice frustrations with changes made in the Senate. Trump's big tax bill is a win. It could also be a big problem for GOP What's different under the Senate version of the tax bill? The legislation, dubbed the "One, Big Beautiful Bill" by Trump, would make the 2017 tax cuts from Trump's first term permanent, increase the child tax credit and introduce other tax cuts, including no taxes on tips or overtime wages. To help pay for the cuts, the government would reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, and make cuts to Medicaid, a program that provides health insurance to more than 71 million low-income Americans. The version in the Senate has some key differences from the House bill, including: Permanent tax breaks for corporations that allow businesses to deduct the full cost of qualifying investments and research projects immediately, rather than over a number of years. In the House's bill, these tax breaks were in effect from 2025 to 2029. Permanently enhancing the standard deduction, adding $750 for single filers, $1,125 for heads of households and $1,500 for married couples starting in 2025. There was a temporary adjustment in the House's version that added $1,000 for single filers, $1,500 for heads of households and $2,000 for couples from 2025 to 2028. Permanently raising the child tax credit to $2,200 starting in 2026, compared to a temporary increase to $2,500 through 2028 in the House bill. "The Senate one makes things more permanent," Smetters told USA TODAY. "On the one hand, we don't have to revisit the same politics in four years. On the other hand, there's a fiscal cost associated with that. That means more debt and more burdens inherited by future generations." More Americans would also lose Medicaid under the Senate's version, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, with an estimated 11.8 million people uninsured by 2034, compared to previous estimates of 10.9 million people under the House's proposal. 5 takeaways: Trump asserts dominance with 'big, beautiful bill' Senate passage Impact on future generations Various analyses suggest Trump's tax bill would reward higher-earning Americans more than their lower-earning counterparts. A June analysis of the House bill by the Congressional Budget Office, for instance, found resources for the poorest would decrease by about $1,600 per year under the legislation, largely due to cuts to Medicaid and food aid - which would be more aggressive under the Senate bill. Meanwhile, the wealthiest would gain about $12,000 on average. Another June report from the Yale Budget Lab suggests the bottom fifth of earners would lose about $560 per year while the top 20% would gain $6,000. But all future generations, no matter their income, would experience lifetime losses, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. High-income households are set to lose $5,700 under the Senate's bill, while low-income households would lose $22,000. The report points to a reduced social security net and lower wages as the main drivers. Under the House bill, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projected lifetime losses ranging from $500 for high-income households to $15,800 for low-income households. "The future generations, they're going to be worse off. It doesn't matter where on the income bracket they fall," Smetters said. "Ultimately, someone has to pay for (the tax bill), and we're basically passing it on to the next generation." Slower economic growth While the House version showed a 0.4% gain in GDP by year 10, according to the Budget Model's previous analysis, the Senate's version would yield a 0.3% loss. After 30 years, GDP would drop 4.6% under the Senate bill compared to a 1.5% drop under the House version. Higher deficits Primary deficits are projected to increase $3.1 trillion over the next decade through the Senate's tax bill, compared to roughly $2.7 trillion under the House bill, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Other reports have also found a higher debt load under the Senate bill. The Congressional Budget Office projects it would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, $800 billion more than the House's bill. And a July report from the Yale Budget Lab says the Senate's bill would add $3 trillion to the debt by 2034, compared to an estimated $2.4 trillion under the House bill. How much do lower-income Americans stand to lose? According to the most recent Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis, the lowest-earning households stand to lose after-tax-and-transfer income in both the short- and long-run, while higher earners would see gains under the Senate bill. Those earning less than $18,000 would lose $235 on average in 2027 and $1,380 by 2033. Those earning between $18,000 and $52,999 would lose $75 in 2027 and $1,625 by 2033. Those earning between $53,000 and $95,999 would gain $1,350 in 2027 but lose $130 by 2033. Those earning between $96,000 and $178,999 would gain $3,880 in 2027 and $2,825 by 2033. Those earning between $179,000 and $271,999 would gain $6,615 in 2027 and $4,985 by 2033. Those earning between $272,000 and $400,999 would gain $9,360 in 2027 and $7,670 by 2033. Those earning between $401,000 and $1,019,999 would gain $20,605 in 2027 and $18,645 by 2033. Those earning between $1,020,000 and $4,450,999 would gain $36,020 in 2027 and $29,430 by 2033. Those with an income above $4,451,000 would gain $290,485 in 2027 and $82,255 by 2033. Smetters said figures may be slightly adjusted as more information on specific amendments becomes available.
The Herald Scotland
19 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
How did the Senate change the GOP tax and spend bill?
Here are some of the changes the Senate made to the bill: Not making it easier to ignore court rulings Senate Republicans removed a provision in the House version of the bill that would have restricted judges' ability to hold people accountable for violating court orders. In recent months some judges have considered contempt rulings against the Trump administration for ignoring court orders that restricted the administration's actions. The legislation would bar judges from enforcing such contempt rulings if they didn't first order a bond, which is commonly set at zero or not ordered in cases when people are claiming the government did something unconstitutional. Democrats say it's an attempt to limit the power of the courts, while Republicans say it was an incentive to stop frivolous lawsuits by requiring plaintiffs to pay in. Who is eligible for the child tax credit? The Senate version allows mixed-status immigration status families to quality for the child tax credit for American citizen children. Currently, children with Social Security numbers, the vast majority of whom are American citizens or legal permanent residents, are eligible for the Child Tax Credit, even if their parents lack Social Security numbers, according to the Center for Migration Studies. The Senate version, requires at least one parent to have a Social Security number to qualify. The House version required both parents to have valid Social Security numbers to qualify, which would have kept millions of children from getting the benefit. The Center for Migration Studies estimated this would have impacted 4.5 million citizen and legal permanent resident children. A ban on regulating AI Senate Republicans stripped out a provision in the House bill that would have blocked states from creating new regulations to shape how artificial intelligence is used or developed for the next 10 years. It would have also blocked dozens of states from enforcing AI regulations and oversight structures already in place. There is now no federal AI regulation to take the place of state policies, which are likely to vary across the country. Tax-free gym memberships Senators removed a portion of the bill qualifying sports and fitness expenses as qualified medical care, which would have allowed people to pay for them tax-free through a Health Savings Account. The benefit, worth $500 for an individual or $1,000 per couple, could not have been used at "a private club" owned by members, or a facility that offers golf, hunting, sailing or riding facilities. The health and fitness part of the business also couldn't be "incidental to its overall function and purpose." Purple Heart benefits Senators also removed a provision that would have created a new income tax credit for some people who earned a Purple Heart - the decoration for service members who were wounded or killed in action. Purple Heart recipients who lost a portion of their Social Security disability benefits because they got a job could have also gotten a higher Earned Income Tax Credit to make up those lost Social Security benefits. Pell grants The Senate also pulled out a change to the Pell Grant program, which provides federal aid to low-income students to attend colleges and universities. Right now, students are considered full time and qualify for the maximum amount of aid if they take 12 credits a semester. The House version of the bill would have changed that to 15 credits a semester, which the National College Attainment Network estimated would result in a nearly $1,500 cut in benefits for students who can't increase their courseload because of work or caretaking responsibilities. The Senate left the 12-credit requirement intact.
The Herald Scotland
20 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Student loans to a space shuttle: Surprises abound in Senate tax bill
Some House Republicans are not happy with the changes the Senate made to the bill, so modifications are possible, but to pass the measure by July 4, as Trump wants, the House has to swallow the Senate version without revisions. The White House has declared it a must-pass bill, meaning it has become a place for pet projects to land in order to secure the votes of nervous senators and representatives. Here are some provisions in the bill that haven't received much attention so far: Benefits for the rich Wealthy Americans benefit far more from the tax package than those lower on the income scale, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis of the Senate bill. The bill preserves the current 37% top marginal individual income tax rate, set by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Republicans passed in 2017, which would otherwise expire - and go up - at the end of the year. While all households would see their taxes reduced, some 60% of the benefits would go to those making $217,000 or more (the top 20% of income earners). In 2026, those people would receive an average tax cut of $12,500, or 3.4% of their after-tax income, the analysis found. In contrast, the lowest-income households who earn about $35,000 or less would receive an average tax cut of only $150, less than 1% of their after-tax income. On average, middle-income households would see their taxes reduced by about $1,800, or 2.3% of their after-tax income. Other provisions in the bill with direct benefits for the wealthiest Americans include a reduction in the estate tax imposed on large inheritances and pass through business incomes. Child tax credit The legislation would permanently increase the child tax credit to $2,200 per kid, up from the current $2,000. Single parents earning up to $200,000 and married couples earning up to $400,000 would qualify. The credit would phase out for those with higher incomes. Cheaper gun silencers Republicans added a provision to the bill that would eliminate a nearly-century-old tax, now $200, for purchasing or making silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and other weapons. They also removed a requirement for gun owners to register their silencers. Moving space shuttle to Houston The bill would move the Space Shuttle Discovery from its current home at the Smithsonian's Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia to the Johnson Space Center in Houston, a goal of legislation brought earlier this year by Texas Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn. The bill sets aside $85 million to relocate to the Johnson Space Center a space vehicle that meets three criteria: it has flown into space, has carried astronauts; and is selected by an organization picked by NASA's administrator. There are only four space vehicles that meet the first two criteria: Enterprise, which belongs to the Intrepid Museum in New York; Endeavor, which belongs to the California Science Center in Los Angeles; Atlantis, which is on display at the Kennedy Space Center, and Discovery at the Smithsonian. Only Atlantis and Discovery are still owned by the United States government. The Smithsonian estimates it would cost between $300 million and $400 million of taxpayer dollars to move Discovery across the country. Last week, at an event at Space Center Houston, Cornyn said Houston's role in the space program is deserving of the Discovery and that the space shuttle should "come back home," although it wasn't manufactured in Houston, nor did it launch from Houston. The Johnson Space Center served as Mission Control for the space shuttle program. Mars mission The bill sets aside $9.995 billion for the Artemis moon mission and the exploration of Mars. Tax credits for whaling captains The Senate increased the deduction that whaling boat captains can claim for whale-hunting-related expenses to $50,000 from the current $10,000. The addition is seemingly a move to get the vote of Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski. First added to the tax code in 2004, it allows people to deduct the cost of maintaining boats and weapons as a charitable contribution. According to the IRS, the recipient has to be recognized as a whaling captain by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and must be engaged in the sanctioned, subsistence hunting of bowhead whales. 'Trump accounts' for kids The bill would create new savings accounts dubbed "Trump accounts" in which babies who are born between January 2025 and January 2029 can benefit from a one-time $1,000 payment from the federal government placed in the account. Parents would then be able to contribute up to $5,000 a year. The savings would be invested in a stock fund that would grow with the stock market. The child could be able to access a portion of the money when they reach age 18 for education, training or buying their first house. They can use the full balance at age 30. Student loan changes The bill places a new cap on the amount students can borrow in federal student loans for graduate school and how much parents can borrow to help pay students' tuition. There would be fewer opportunities for deferments or forbearance and new limits on lending for part-time students. The bill also has much more limited set of repayment options, ending loan forgiveness programs that have been in place for years, as well as a Biden-era program that tailored payment requirements to the person's income. It would be replaced with a new fixed-rate program, which would disadvantage lower-income families. Green energy programs The bill would dramatically roll back Biden-era tax breaks designed to boost clean energy projects fueled by renewable sources such as energy and wind. Democrats say it will devastate wind and solar industry growth, cause a spike in Americans' utility bills and jeopardize hundreds of renewable energy projects slated to boost the nation's electric grid, along with the jobs those would have created. It also ends a tax break on Sept. 30, instead of at the end of 2032 for people who buy new or used electric vehicles. The GOP bill also increases oil and gas leases on public lands and revives coal leasing in several states. Charging foreign workers Migrants often move to other countries in part to send money home to their family or community abroad. The United States is the world's largest source of these transfers, known as remittances. The Republican bill would implement a 3.5% tax on those transfers, which must be paid by the person sending the money. It would include an exemption for American citizens. This article has been updated.
