Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons

Alan Campbell Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the First Report of the Modernisation Committee, Access to the House of Commons and its Procedures, HC 755, and the House Administration response, HC 1726.

It is a pleasure to open this debate today, both in my capacity as Leader of the House of Commons and as Chair of the Modernisation Committee. I begin by extending the Committee’s thanks to all those who provided evidence. The Committee heard directly from Members of this House and the other place, as well as from members of staff, experts and academics. I thank former and current Committee members for their work on this inquiry. In particular, I thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell).

The Modernisation Committee embarked on this inquiry following a consultation that it held in autumn 2024, when it heard the views of hundreds of members of the parliamentary community about what it should prioritise. The resounding call was to consider the accessibility of the House—both physical accessibility of the parliamentary estate, and the accessibility of procedures and conventions in the Chamber, including the information that the House provides to the public about our work.

We all recognise that the Palace of Westminster is an iconic building and part of a UNESCO world heritage site, but that comes with challenges for accessibility. The Committee received sobering evidence about the negative impact that these challenges can have on Members, staff and visitors. They include inaccessible doors, toilets, lifts, lighting and signage, which impact on the daily lives of people trying to use the estate. The Committee has been encouraged by the House Administration’s efforts to address some of these issues, including before the inquiry concluded, but the tasks before it remain substantial.

To assist the House Administration, the Committee recommended that an external accessibility advisory group be established, so that the Administration can call upon its expertise when needed. I am pleased that the House of Commons Commission is undertaking work to set up that group. A key issue that the Committee identified was the lack of progress on issues raised in accessibility audits of the estate. The Committee therefore recommended that the House Administration publish a summary of progress against accessibility audit recommendations, and I am pleased that the House Administration’s progress will now be a regular feature of business plans and tracked throughout the year.

An overarching challenge for the House Administration is the culture around accessibility. The Committee concluded that although the aspiration of the Administration is to provide accessible services, there is a lack of central responsibility or clear lines of accountability to deliver it. The Committee believes that this must be addressed by introducing better training and practical guidance for staff, specific to their area of responsibility.

The Committee also recommended that the House Administration revise its strategic priorities to make it explicit, as part of the value of being inclusive, that accessibility is a priority for the organisation, alongside security and safety. I am pleased that the next three-year strategy for the House Administration includes an explicit commitment to improve accessibility.

I turn now to the House of Commons procedures and processes. Many of the procedures and processes that govern our proceedings have been in place for a long time, for very good reason. We are grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, for the care that you take in assisting Members who have access needs. To ensure that this support is clearly advertised to all Members, the Committee recommended that references to the routes available to MPs who require reasonable adjustments be made in the guidance for Members. The report also explored issues relating to seating in the Chamber and to Divisions, and made a series of recommendations. Work is currently under way to consider how deferred Divisions might be made more accessible, and the potential introduction of a reasonable adjustment card scheme for MPs who require certain seats for access reasons.

The final section of the report focused on communication. Ensuring that we communicate in an accessible way is key to ensuring that our constituents can stay informed about what happens here. That includes thinking about how we improve accessibility for visitors in the Public Gallery, and leading by example in ensuring that the documents we produce are accessible to the largest possible number of people. I know that the Administration Committee and the House Administration are considering what more can be done in these areas.

The Modernisation Committee received the House Administration’s response to our report, published on 19 March, which assured us that it would make progress on our recommendations. Today I look forward to hearing from Members across the House on their experiences. The Committee will draw on these when we hear about further progress from the House’s senior leadership team later this year.

Accessibility should never be an afterthought. It is a core part of what we do, and I commend this motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I hope to take a little bit of time responding to them, because although this has been a relatively short debate, it has been a very useful one.

Let me first comment on the shadow Leader of the House’s speech. I thank him for his remarks and the way that he made them. It is abundantly evident from the time that we have worked together that he cares deeply about this place, as do I, as he knows. We are, to some extent, adversaries in a system that is adversarial; but at heart, we share a deep respect and love for this place, not least because, as he knows, we are both passing through. It was here before we got here, and it will be here after we leave.

That means that we work well on the Committee. What has struck me, in the relatively short time that I chaired the Committee, is that it works in a cross-party way; in fact, it works in a non-party way. Given the varied experience and the varied party labels of people around the room, it is amazing how often we actually understand the problem, analyse it and get to the right conclusion. That is not as rare in this place as people think; indeed, it is why it works very well indeed.

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s concern that dumbing down can be a problem if we are not careful. This is not about dumbing down; it is about making this place more accessible, but also about how we do things. Where I do not agree with him, as he knows, is on restoration and renewal; on that, we are on different sides. However, as has been pointed out, today’s short debate is about now. It is about how we conduct ourselves now and for the foreseeable future, because even if the House takes a particular view on R and R and moves forward, it will still be quite a long time before some of the issues come to fruition. I believe that accessibility must be at the core of what we are doing now, but it must also be at the core of what happens after a decision is made on R and R.

Let me turn to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). I commend him on the excellent work that he does on his all-party groups, which I know comes from his deep personal interest in these matters, his experience and his commitment. The personal experience of these issues that he brings to this debate is important; it is abundantly clear that instead of observing these things from a distance and seeing them in our own way, we should learn from a position of experience. I very much value his contribution to modernisation. He is a strong advocate; if he has a strong view, he will voice it, and I absolutely commend him for that.

The issues with booking that my hon. Friend spoke about are not acceptable. I give him a commitment that we will look into that and see what more can be done. The story of what happened at that recent event illustrates the problem, and shows how important this investigation and report are. However—I will return to this point in my closing remarks—this is a work in progress. The report is a step along the way, not the end point.

Like other Members, my hon. Friend paid tribute to the work of our hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). As I know from personal experience, on matters of policy and everything else, she is a very strong advocate. I value her contribution and her knowledge on these matters very much indeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford raised the issue of changing places and toilet facilities and, interestingly, pointed to the National Portrait Gallery. I have found out that, as Leader of the House, I am a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery— I have more than found it out; I have actually participated in the trustee role, to some extent. The next time I visit, I will once again remind them that there is a portrait of a former Member for Tynemouth—Dame Irene Ward, who was also the longest-serving woman MP—in the gallery, and I recently surpassed the length of time that she served in that seat. I am just letting them know that there is a certain logical conclusion that follows, but so far, they have not taken the hint—although I will not be wearing the hat that she is wearing in her photograph. [Interruption.] Well, it will be very popular.

Let me turn to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), the Lib Dem spokesperson, who drew on her experience of this period of the Session, when there is ping-pong and Lords amendments. It is a difficult course that we have to navigate. I do not want to stress this too much, but I have been around quite a long time, and I can assure hon. Members that every time we get to Lords amendments, I have to go to the Clerks and ask whether I am right in what I think. I am not going to say that every time I navigate this, I get a different answer, but it is notoriously difficult. However, she is right; there are things that we should be able to do to inform Members of where we have got to.

I agree with the hon. Lady’s remarks about thinking about how and why we do things, because it is really important—other Members also picked this up—that the way we conduct our affairs in this place evolves, although we should also be careful about how that happens. We need to be—if hon. Members do not mind me saying so on this occasion—conservative with a small c. There should be a good reason before we change things. I fear that she might be correct, in that some of the changes will not be quick, but that does not mean— I know that she accepts this—that we should not get on with them. We do get on with them; we knock down the barriers and, where we can, quicken things up.

The hon. Lady has mentioned on a number of occasions that she is running the London marathon. I commend her for that, and for her hard sell on sponsorship. I would encourage people to run it; most of us, not least me, will not be doing that, but she is, and that is great. She talked about how the Modernisation Committee works. It is right that we share a space with other Committees, but they bring an expertise to what we do. I think that works quite well, because we can and do work effectively with other Committees.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the impact of covid, which had a massive effect on the way that this place works. We have spent a great deal of time trying to get back some of the things that were lost during covid—and they were lost. It was not just the way that this place conducts its votes that changed; it was, for example, the way that speeches were made. When most people, apart from the Whips, vacated this place and we moved to virtual speeches, I for one expected that nobody would want to speak. In fact, everybody wanted to speak, because they were speaking from their kitchen and making a three-minute speech. As a result, and with all due respect to new Members, there are now far more people trying to get in on debates, and far more time limits. It is now quite unusual to listen to a speech like this, that lasts more than three minutes. There were lasting effects from that time. However, there are lessons here, not just on this issue, but on other things we do. I would say to the hon. Lady that we are not going back to what we regarded as normal. We need to move forward and make things better.

I also endorse what the hon. Lady said about the great job that the education team does, particularly with younger children, and the daunting experience of trying to explain to them how this place works. I had that experience when children from Marine Park first school came down recently. Before I spoke to them, they had been in St James’s Park, having their packed lunch. I expected the first question to be, “Have you ever met the King?”, or “How much do you get paid?,” but it was, “Have you ever had your sandwich stolen by a duck?”, which brought politics down to a different level. I had not, actually, but unfortunately the child had, and she clearly remembered it.

Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I agree with his appreciation of the work of the previous Member for Harlow. We did not agree along political lines, but I learned a great deal from him; he was an excellent Member of Parliament.

I also agree with my hon. Friend about accessibility for all. It is not just about making this place accessible but making politics accessible. It is also not just about the people who are here now, who often had a greater struggle than some of us to get here, but the people in future who might want to get here but think that there are literally physical barriers in their way. Everybody has the right to get here, or at least to aspire to—it is up to the electorate to decide whether they are coming or not.

My hon. Friend also made an interesting point about Portcullis House. To some of us, Portcullis House is very new, yet it was the very place that was identified as being inaccessible. This is a battle that will continue over a long period of time. I echo the point that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) made that procedure is important, and the history of this place is important. It is quite interesting what happens when new Members turn up—I know because I was one once. We think that things are going to change rapidly and that the House is going to change, but when we settle in a bit we realise why we do what we do. That is why we need to proceed at speed with some of these changes, but—if it is not the opposite—we also need to proceed with a degree of caution.

Turning to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), I look forward to his contribution when the debate on R and R comes around. I think he thought that that is what this debate was going to be about. I cannot tell him when it will be, but there will be a debate. To some extent it has already been postponed, but that has been done for the right reason. He and I are on opposite sides on this, but I want Members to have absorbed the report. It is a big, far-reaching and powerful report, and I want Members to have the time for it to sink in.

I am very conscious that the situation is going to be brought into greater focus in the difficult international and economic situation we are living through. Considerations about how we spend taxpayers’ money will come into greater focus, so it is absolutely right that the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office are looking at this. It is right that we get reports from them and are able to see in a more authoritative way—it is their job to do this—whether the proposals on the table are ones that we want to back or change. I can say to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and the House two things: first, there will be a debate, and, secondly, Members in this place and in the Lords will make the decision on this. It will not be a decision taken behind closed doors.

[Jesse Norman]

The Leader of the House may not have been in his place, but I suggested that it might be possible to have two debates—a digestive debate and then a debate with a decision. Even if one of those is a Backbench debate, would that be something that he would support?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I certainly support people having their say and being informed by debates. I will give it some thought; I am not rejecting it out of hand. But there will be a moment and there will be a motion, and then we will have to decide. As I say, I will be on a different side because, going back to what I have said about this remarkable place, this is an iconic building. It is part of a UNESCO world heritage site. Despite how legalistic the terms are, it is not owned by the Government but by the nation.

People will look at the numbers, and the numbers are eye-watering—I give them that—and the timescale is eye-watering too, but we will not save any money by delaying the vote to decide to either get on with it or not. Time and again when people were asked, they said that they want to see this place survive. It is the crucible of their politics. They want to be able to access it safely, and currently it is not safe in many ways. We are going to have to address this, but I give the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and the House my word that we will have a vote at some point in time.

Let me turn to the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I do remember the event that he talked about. I am sorry that we were not able to find a way through that situation. He raised the different aspects of why he felt that he was in that situation, and I do think that we need to go away and reflect on that. The proxy system is evolving, but we should take away examples and see whether we need to make some changes.

This is not an excuse for what happened, but it was a set of unusual circumstances in the sense that it was not just a private Member’s Bill but a hotly contested private Member’s Bill. People felt personally committed to it, and I remember a huge number of emails about. There was also an expectation that people would be here. Therefore, the thing that we can do—to decide not to be here and not to vote—was not really an option for many people. When it came to trying to get someone to pair or finding some other way, I could not find a way through it at that time.

Briefly, I want to say that this is not just about changing a system—for example, proxy voting, which I would be open to looking at, and I think the Modernisation Committee would be too. I am a great advocate of the usual channels. I am a great advocate of the bit that people think is very suspicious and that makes them wonder why on earth we have such a system. Actually, it makes this place work. It is the oil that makes the engine of this place work. There are things that can be done through the usual channels that are never seen but that make life better for people—for MPs.

I will not go into the realm of the divisive politics that we have just lived through, but I will say that it is not just about covid. Covid is one part of it, but I have lived through recent times where politics has been more divisive. Therefore, it has been more difficult to get Opposition parties to accept the Government position, and the Government are finding it difficult to accept the perspective of the Opposition parties. I have to say, if this place is going to work better, we have to do it better. That is not to say that we have to resurrect the usual channels as it always was, but we have to find ways of better working, and that includes—I am not ashamed to say this—the personal relationships that make the usual channels work. That is certainly my approach, and it will continue to be so as long as I have the opportunity to contribute.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) was right to say that there was a huge turnover at the general election. In fact, it was said to me that 80% of Members now have less than seven years’ experience. Even when there was a massive change in 1997 and, indeed, 2010, it was not on that scale. The effect is that we have lost some of the institutional memory of this place, and that, as far as I am concerned, is a deficit.

On the other hand, we have a great number of new MPs with varied backgrounds, with all sorts of experiences, and also with varied needs. That is good, because we need to keep moving through that generational change. There is always a bit of a price to pay, but there is always an advantage to getting there as well. It is important that we take that into account. There are solutions to many of the issues that have been raised, but as I say, this report is not the end of the story. We will continue to work on this.

I understand the points that have been made about lots of votes, the time it takes and how exhausting it can be—and that is not to trivialise the experience of people who have additional needs. But going back to what I just said about the usual channels, I cannot remember a time when we had as many votes. When it comes to the responsibility of this place and the relationship between us and the other place, yes, they have every right to send lots back, and we have every right to kick it back too, but at some point they have to start giving something and the Government have to start giving something too. It is how Parliament works. It is how democracy works.

We do not have to have as many votes in this place as we do. They do not have as many votes down the corridor as we do here on a day-to-day basis. We do not have to have a vote at the end of Second Reading. Even if Members do not agree with a Bill, they do not have to vote against it on Second Reading. They can vote it down on Third Reading. The point of listening and making a speech against a Bill on Second Reading is that it will go to Committee, where changes can be made. If hon. Members do not like it, they can have a go on Report, and if they still do not like it they can vote it down on Third Reading. We spend a great deal of time on Divisions when we pretty well know what the results will be in most of them. [Interruption.] I am wandering a bit now, I can see that, but these are all issues where there are different solutions from those that might appear obvious. However, I will take that away and think about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich also made an important point about gender. Long may she continue to do so, because that is very important indeed.

We clearly have a long way to go on modernisation. We have seen some encouraging progress, and the report is part of that. We will continue to monitor all sorts of issues, including accessibility. I look forward to working in a collegiate way with colleagues to make progress and to make this an even greater place to work and for visitors to visit. I thank the House authorities for their ongoing work and commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the First Report of the Modernisation Committee, Access to the House of Commons and its Procedures, HC 755, and the House Administration response, HC 1726.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Tuesday evening, in the midst of a succession of votes, the technology supporting the world’s oldest continuous Parliament failed. I thank the Clerks and support staff for their speedy response and the quick transition to the old paper system, and the Whips for the effective communication. The Microsoft technology that runs our electronic voting system did not communicate effectively and displayed the message, “Cannot connect to essential module” or something similar. Despite successive reboots and the window of doom, that was all we could get out of it.

Madam Deputy Speaker, can we expect a report on the reasons for the failure, whether Microsoft provided speedy and appropriate support, how resilient the technology is and whether other providers are available? The failure was time consuming for Members, but more importantly it reduced confidence in the democratic process.