The indefensible cost of the Lords’ new door

SIR – Your report (February 3) about the renovation of the Peers’ Entrance to the House of Lords raises issues of great concern to many peers.

It is unclear to us how and why the costs have increased to £7.5 million – a rise of almost 300 per cent – since we first learnt of the planned renovation less than six months ago. It is also difficult to believe that the increase is “due to delays caused by issues unearthed during initial surveys and other works taking place nearby” or inflation, as the Senior Deputy Speaker stated in his recent parliamentary answer. Nor can such expenditure be justified at a time when so many are facing financial hardship.

These renovations have been proposed on the grounds of security, but we have seen neither the report which made these recommendations nor the financial case to support them.

Rather than ruin the magnificent Peers’ Entrance, it would be preferable to address the obvious security risks posed by the existing low barriers, which should be replaced by a perimeter fence that is both secure and in keeping with this World Heritage Site, while minimising the cost to the taxpayer. It would also be better if we were consulted in advance of these decisions being made, rather than being faced with a fait accompli by the House administration.

Lord Mancroft (Con)

Lord Strathclyde (Con) Baroness Deech (Crossbench) Lord Shinkwin (Con)

Lord Bridges of Headley (Con) Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con) Baroness Meyer (Con)

Lord Dobbs (Con)

Lord Howard of Rising (Con)

SIR – Who are they hoping will make this door, Brunelleschi?

Marie Blanchard

Newport, Monmouthshire

SIR – While the cost of the new door for the Lords does indeed seem remarkable, it is worth remembering that the oldest door in Britain is in Westminster Abbey across the road. It was made around 1052 and has survived for more than 900 years. Surely £7 million would not be excessive if the new door lasts as long. Andrew Wauchope London SE11