Explained: The row over the £9.6 million door at UK Parliament, which doesn’t work

A front entrance to the UK House of Lords, designed as part of a major security overhaul, has become the centre of a controversy after it was revealed that it cost taxpayers £9.6 million — and still does not function without manual assistance.

Despite being touted as a modern and secure addition to the parliamentary estate, the door cannot be operated independently and has to be manually triggered by a staff member at all times.

The situation has drawn heavy criticism from across the chamber, prompted an official inquiry.

From £6.1 million to £9.6 million

Initially projected to cost £6.1 million, the front entrance refurbishment eventually ballooned by nearly 60 per cent, with the final expenditure totalling £9.6 million.

This figure only became public following sustained pressure by members of the House of Lords, who expressed concern over the repeated refusal by authorities to disclose the amount, citing security risks.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean questioned the basis of this secrecy, stating, “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.”

Baroness Smith of Basildon later revealed the cost breakdown, clarifying that part of the increase stemmed from the requirement that the entrance remain accessible throughout the parliamentary sitting period.

She stated, “The initial estimate was £6.1million 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.”

She also explained that additional costs were incurred due to unexpected heritage-related challenges uncovered during construction.

“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,” she said.

How the £9.6 million failed to operate

Despite the scale of the project, the newly installed security door has not delivered on its intended functionality. It currently requires the constant presence of a security officer to press a button to allow entry. Peers have been scathing in their assessment of the outcome.

Lord Robathan described the expenditure as “a scandalous waste of public money” and demanded accountability, adding, “Somebody accountable must be identified and should perhaps resign for this terrible waste of public money.”

Lord Hayward noted that maintaining a staff member to operate the entrance costs approximately £2,500 every week. He remarked, “That cost has to be borne by someone.”

Smith acknowledged these concerns during a debate, saying, “It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should.”

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.”

The door, unlike others in the parliamentary estate, was designed to be fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or mobility aids, which added complexity to its design and implementation. Nonetheless, the current outcome has been disappointing.

Forsyth cited a recent incident in which a person using a wheelchair was unable to enter, calling the entrance “a complete white elephant and a disaster.”

UK Lord Speaker calls inquiry

In light of growing public and political outrage, UK Lord Speaker John McFall of Alcluith has formally requested an independent probe into the procurement and delivery of the door.

In a letter addressed to Lord Morse, a crossbench peer and former head of the National Audit Office, Lord McFall highlighted the need for greater transparency and assessment.

He wrote, “Additional information will be needed to understand the failures, including information on costs – both how the initial project figure of £6.1m was arrived at and the increase to the current total of £9.6m, and any unanticipated additional costs such as increased staffing to manage and operate the entrance.”

He added, “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.”

The letter stressed that the problems with the entrance raise wider concerns about the way large-scale projects are executed within UK Parliament and questioned whether adequate planning and testing of specifications had taken place prior to approval.

Parliament responds, contractors to bear repair costs

In an effort to manage the backlash, senior deputy speaker Lord Gardiner of Kimble assured members that the financial burden for repairing the faulty door will not fall on the House of Lords.

He said, “The cost to remedy defects will not be borne by the House and will be met by Parliament’s contractors.” He stated that the current staffing required to operate the door comes from within the existing personnel pool and does not represent additional hiring.

“It is unacceptable that the Peers’ Entrance does not operate as it should. The commission has directed urgent work to resolve this,” Gardiner told the chamber.

A House of Lords spokesperson, responding to criticism, said that referring to the work as the simple installation of a door was inaccurate. They clarified that the project involved the implementation of new security systems and infrastructure modifications, along with heritage conservation efforts.

According to the spokesperson, a number of factors had contributed to the increased cost, including the discovery of historical vaults, the need to minimise disruption to ongoing parliamentary sessions, and delays caused by unscheduled ceremonial events.

Despite these explanations, dissatisfaction remains high among members, many of whom claim that their concerns about the design and execution were ignored from the outset.

Forsyth asserted, “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.”

He criticised the lack of accountability and questioned whether any lessons were being learned.

Robathan added, “If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked.”

Smith admitted that there is a limited period in which a final decision must be made on the entrance’s usability: “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.”

She concluded, “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.”

With inputs from agencies