Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons

Sarah Coombes Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for that powerful speech. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the need for reform of the proxy voting system and for some humanity to be introduced for such circumstances.

I was proud to serve on the Modernisation Committee and to take part in gathering evidence for the report. The Committee very much appreciated all those who took the time and effort to submit evidence and to give oral evidence, including Mr Speaker and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as the wider team, many members of House staff, and campaigners. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), who has already been mentioned. She is a tireless advocate for disability rights and access. It is thanks to her advocacy that the door handles across the estate are now properly usable by those with disabilities. Before, as we heard earlier, many disabled people were unable to go to the toilet unaided, which was scandalous.

In this place, many people often talk up a tension between modernisation and tradition, which does undoubtedly exist, but the Committee’s role is to find a way through that does justice to those who have every right to be properly represented here. As has been mentioned, this Parliament is unique in that over half of MPs were new in 2024. I think that is the highest turnover of MPs in any Parliament. Many of us came here from modern workplaces in which the accessibility, inclusivity, hybrid working, productivity and efficiency standards far exceed those in this place. In coming to work here, a lot of us felt that we were walking back in time, not just because of the ancient building, but because of the way some of the processes here work.

The Committee’s report is comprehensive. We have heard excellent speeches about the accessibility of the building, but I will build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said about the accessibility of parliamentary procedures, particularly speaking, bobbing and voting. I will also mention gender representation among speakers. Before I go through those points, let me say that the staff here do excellent work and are very considerate; they work with MPs to help us do our jobs and speak for our constituents.

I wanted to put on the record in this debate some of the powerful and eye-opening evidence we heard from current and former Members during the report process. I will not speak for other members of the Committee, but I honestly found some of the evidence we heard shocking. It is hard for those who are not MPs to understand how speaking in this Chamber—our No. 1 job as Members of Parliament—works. For those listening who do not quite understand how it works, an MP informs the Speaker’s Office of their desire to speak. They then come to the Chamber, “bob” and wait until they are called to speak. That can mean waiting for three or four hours—and sometimes up to six hours.

I have learned much sitting in this Chamber and listening to other Members speak, but the process certainly does have a disproportionate impact on some MPs. Let me mention a few examples from our evidence sessions that stayed with me. One MP with severe physical disabilities told us how difficult they found waiting hours and hours to speak in a debate. They felt physically exhausted by the time they were called to speak many hours later, and felt that they just could not do justice to what they had hoped to say on behalf of their constituents. Another MP with musculoskeletal issues sat on these Benches and waited to speak for so long that they were in agony for days afterwards. Another told us that voting 10-plus times over hours left them practically unable to walk in the days afterwards.

One woman MP in the very early stages of pregnancy felt extremely ill but waited hours to speak. In all fairness, she did not want to confide in the Speaker’s team about the situation. Another woman MP told me about experiencing pregnancy loss in this House, and feeling that she had to disclose it to her Whips. I do not think anybody would want that.

We had an evidence session with disabled MPs. A Member of the House of Lords who was in attendance said that he was completely shocked by the disparity in reasonable adjustments between this House and the other place. I am very glad that many of those issues were addressed by the recommendations in the report, including the recommendation that a reasonable adjustments card be introduced, which would allow a seat to be saved for disabled Members. That has been an ongoing issue. Other recommendations include potentially using the Reasons Room for voting in a way that is inclusive and not so exhausting; and a new disabled toilet near the Chamber.

I hope that wider issues continue to be considered, however. The evidence we heard strongly suggested that the best processes are accessible by design; that is preferable to forcing disabled people or those with conditions to ask constantly for exemptions, or to explain themselves. I know that many of those who submitted evidence to our inquiry were disappointed by the outcome of the Procedure Committee report on call lists, which could have made a significant difference by providing more certainty to those who have conditions but do not want to disclose them, or to people who have to take medicine at mealtimes, for example.

Voting is at the heart of what we do in this House. Surely more can be done in 2026 to preserve all the good bits of MPs physically voting together, while speeding up proceedings enormously through the use of tech, particularly on days with 10, 12 or 14 votes, such as those we have experienced lately.

I also want to address the gender split of speakers. The one thing that MPs can do that no one else can is speak in this House on behalf of our constituents, but if we consider the speaking statistics, all is not equal. Women make up 41% of all MPs, but a rough calculation —such as the one the House of Commons Library has done for me—shows that just 35% of contributions made in this Chamber are from women. In the Lords, where 34% of Members are women, 41% of all contributions are from women Members. I wonder what we can learn from the structure for speaking in the Lords. I note that the Lords have a form of call list for some proceedings, and it seems to benefit women’s voices.

I realise that I am still a relative newbie in this House, and I am sure that the views of MPs change over time as they experience different iterations of Parliaments, but I hope that, in addition to the good changes that have already been made as a result of the report, there will be further progress in the future.