A £9.6m new entrance to the House of Lords is under investigation after failing to function, sparking outrage over spiralling costs and lack of accountability.
A newly installed front entrance at the House of Lords—intended to modernise access to the historic Peers’ Entrance—has drawn widespread criticism after it was revealed that the £9.6 million project has failed to function properly and requires manual operation by a full-time security officer.
Originally budgeted at £6.1 million, the cost of the entrance spiralled by nearly 60%, and the door still requires a staff member to press a button to open it. Peers now say the malfunctioning installation is costing taxpayers an additional £2,500 each week in staffing, Sky news reported.
The controversy has prompted Lord Speaker John McFall of Alcluith, who chairs the House of Lords Commission, to call for an independent review. In a letter to Lord Morse—a crossbench peer and former head of the National Audit Office—Lord McFall requested a detailed investigation into how such an expensive and critical project could fail so dramatically, it was reported.
Originally budgeted at £6.1 million, the cost of the entrance spiralled by nearly 60%, and the door still requires a staff member to press a button to open it. Peers now say the malfunctioning installation is costing taxpayers an additional £2,500 each week in staffing
“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,” Lord McFall wrote in his letter. He added that a comprehensive review of cost estimates and project oversight was urgently needed, particularly to determine how the initial budget was set and why it ballooned by over £3 million.
“The problems that have arisen around delivery of the new entrance pose larger questions about effective programme delivery, including capability within parliamentary departments,” he warned.
The entrance, which forms the main point of access for members of the upper chamber, was part of an effort to enhance security, accessibility, and efficiency within the estate. Instead, it has become a symbol of public sector waste and has triggered frustration among peers across the political spectrum.
Senior Deputy Speaker Lord Gardiner of Kimble acknowledged the debacle in a recent session at Westminster, calling the situation “unacceptable.” He confirmed that “urgent work” was underway to fix the faults and added that the cost of repairs would be covered by contractors, not by Parliament itself.
“It is unacceptable that the Peers’ Entrance does not operate as it should. The commission has directed urgent work to resolve this,” Lord Gardiner told the chamber.
But for many peers, the apology and assurances have not gone far enough.
Former Conservative minister Lord Robathan described the entire project as a “scandalous waste of public money” and called for accountability. “It is now nearly £10 million for a door that does not work,” he said, adding that “somebody accountable should be identified and perhaps resign for this terrible waste.”
Lord Hayward, another Conservative peer, pressed the issue further by highlighting the ongoing cost of staffing required to manually operate the defective door. “Calculated on the written answer he provided to me, [staff] are costing £2,500 per week. That cost has to be borne by someone,” he said.
In response, Lord Gardiner attempted to downplay the impact on staffing resources. “I am assured that they are within the existing complement of members of staff,” he said, suggesting that no new staff had been hired to manage the faulty entrance.
However, the incident has prompted renewed scrutiny of procurement, oversight, and project delivery mechanisms within Parliament. Critics argue that the door fiasco reflects deeper issues with how major public works are scoped, budgeted, and implemented—particularly in institutions where transparency and accountability are essential.
Lord Morse is now expected to lead a full-scale examination of how such a significant expenditure resulted in a non-functional and embarrassing outcome for one of the UK’s oldest institutions. His findings could trigger a broader review into how similar projects across the parliamentary estate are handled and who is ultimately held responsible when taxpayer money is squandered.
As Parliament continues to grapple with rising costs across its estate and ongoing refurbishment challenges, the £9.6 million door that doesn’t open may become a lasting symbol of bureaucratic missteps and failed oversight—unless, of course, someone finally gets it to work.
