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.
"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"For security reasons we do not publish, or comment on, the costs of capital security work."
