I have to say that this is one of the areas of concern that I pick up constantly. I am assured that work is in progress to ensure that we have a telephone that we can pick up and put a call through on, and it will work.
My Lords, while we are on the subject of provisions in this place, may I express the hope that at last the front door is more family-friendly than it used to be? I have also heard that we are now planning another potentially traumatic change in that area in relocating and transforming the bag security search. If that is the case, may I follow up on the characteristically serious question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and ask: are we going to be consulted about it, is there such a plan, what are the costs and budget involved, and when will we hear about it?
Perhaps I should be formal and say that the Companion is very clear about asking supplementary questions that do not engage the main Question. However, I will say on this occasion in good will that I spent 10 minutes with the Yeoman Usher this morning looking at the door, ensuring that noble Lords and their visitors were able to enter and exit without due alarm. However, I use this opportunity to say that it is clear that we need to work with noble Lords to ensure that all in the parliamentary community are safe. I have picked up on the point that the noble Lord makes, and I shall make sure that there is, as always, proper consultation, if it is the case that there are going to be elements of security matters that affect the House. This is an issue on which, if we had our time again, we should have worked far more closely with noble Lords on ensuring that important security issues are properly discussed—mindful of the sensitivity of those issues because, clearly, we have adversaries who wish us ill. I take the noble Lord’s point very seriously and will report back to him.
The noble Lord makes a very valid point; this is something that has troubled me for some time. On the particular matter of the Peers’ Entrance, the project business case has undergone a process of standard professional scrutiny. The clerks of both Houses ultimately scrutinised and approved those costs following advice from the investment committee, which is chaired by the two finance directors of both Houses. As a result of what has happened, going forwards the Finance Committee in this House, which has received up-to-date reports on major programmes, will be asked to supplement its work with enhanced scrutiny of both costs and performance on a quarterly basis. I would say, however, as I am very close to my colleague, that the Clerk of the Parliaments is the accounting officer and legal officer, and in the end the responsibility is directly in his hands.
My Lords, last week when we were discussing this issue I made a silly mistake. I suggested that the wretched front entrance had cost as much as Grenfell Tower. I am sorry; I completely misread the briefing that I was given. I do not feel comfortable leaving such a silly comparison like that uncorrected on the record, so I hope that the Senior Deputy Speaker and the whole House will accept my apology for such a silly error on such a serious issue.
My Lords, I think the House takes that in the spirit and the manner in which the noble Lord made those remarks. Both, in their way, are serious. Obviously, the tragedy of what happened in Grenfell Tower remains with us always, but clearly the security imperative of protecting everyone in this Palace is also paramount. We need to ensure that it is value for money and that the wretched thing then works.
My Lords, interestingly, when the public were surveyed in March, 74% of them supported the preserving of the building for future generations. We should have confidence that this building represents across the world a very important feature—democracy—and how that should function and flourish. Clearly, it is important that we work with large companies and SMEs, encourage apprentices and create a range of employment opportunities and careers in what will be one of the most dramatic restoration projects across the world. We should be confident. They are all very good reasons for working with business to ensure that we get the best result for the nation. We should get on with it as soon as possible.
My Lords, I welcome the emphasis on cost-effectiveness and timeliness, and welcome the mention by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, of frivolousness. Are there any lessons on restoration and renewal that we can take from the saga of our front door and the fence outside? Why is it that every policeman and custodian that one asks says that the fence which has just been erected is dangerous, as it cuts off sightlines for those who might be wishing harm on this place? How have we spent more on this front door and this fence than on the Grenfell Tower disaster?
My Lords, they are both very serious matters which go back to the independent report on security and the need to enhance the security of the West Front following the death of PC Palmer. The backdrop is a security imperative. I will say next Wednesday that what has happened to our front door is entirely unacceptable. This has not been a project that anyone should be proud of, but we need to enhance our security, for reasons that many of us regret but which are necessary in the world in which we live.
It is important that we learn lessons from what other Parliaments are doing. That is why we are in dialogue with the Austrians, the Dutch and the Canadians, where they have had experience of renovation of Parliaments, and, in our own country, with Buckingham Palace and Manchester Town Hall.