THE UK Government is accused of “wasting” public money after reports that it will spend £7 million to renovate the front door of the House of Lords.
The massive bill is more than triple the original £2m estimate. The work to beef up security is to be done on the main “Peers' Entrance” to Westminster.
SNP MP Tommy Sheppard said people in Scotland would be “appalled that the Tory government is wasting £7m on a fancy new door for the House of Lords during a cost of living crisis”.
He went on: "Instead of wasting taxpayers’ cash renovating this archaic institution, they should be abolishing it.
READ MORE: Scots ‘should be affronted’ by UK loophole which lets Lords be MSPs
"The House of Lords is a rotten symbol of everything wrong with the broken Westminster system. The sooner Scotland becomes independent and escapes Westminster control the better."
Michael Forsyth, the chairman of the Conservative peers' group, also raised concerns about the cost.
He told the Telegraph that dozens of peers had expressed concerns about the scale of the works, but the Lords had refused to disclose their official cost.
Forsyth said it was "completely unacceptable that the Parliamentary authorities are refusing to answer parliamentary questions”.
He said: "At a time of great pressure on public expenditure it is surely right for taxpayers and members of Parliament to be told what is being spent when the sums involved are so enormous.
"The peers' entrance door at £7 million should surely be worthy of the Guinness Book of Records and the estimated cost has tripled in less than a year."
John Gardiner, the deputy speaker of the House of Lords, told Forsyth in a Parliamentary answer: "The cost of works to replace the door at Peers’ Entrance has increased due to delays caused by issues unearthed during initial surveys and other works taking place in the nearby area.
"Increases were also caused by inflation, which meant tender returns came back higher than estimated."
A Lords spokesperson said: "Parliament is committed to ensuring the safety of everyone on the Parliamentary estate, the project at peers' entrance is an important part of that commitment.
"For security reasons we do not publish, or comment on, the costs of capital security work."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel