(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I point out that live British Sign Language interpretation of the debate is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
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.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for his remarks, and fully echo both their detail and their sentiment. As he says, accessibility should never be an afterthought. In the case of the House of Commons, there is not just the common decency that goes with trying to support anyone with a disability or another need. A vital aspect of being an effective parliamentarian is that every single Member of Parliament, whatever their background and personal needs, should be able to discharge their full capabilities on behalf of their constituents. That is why it is so central to what we do as a House.
Let me join the Leader of the House in welcoming the report. I also very much welcome the response from the House Administration, which is a very constructive document, by and large. We on the Committee are grateful for the constructive way in which the House Administration engaged with our concerns all the way through. I pay tribute not just to the current and previous members of the Committee, but to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and indeed to the current Leader of the House for steering this ship home to port.
I have a couple of reflections to add on this topic. Of course, when we think about accessibility, it is very easy just to think of physical changes to the structure of the House of Commons, but the Leader of House was absolutely right to think about not just Members but visitors, staff and people who use this building in many different ways, and about accessibility in relation to the public’s understanding of what we are trying to do.
There is a tradition in British political thought that the House of Commons should have not merely an efficient aspect to it, as Bagehot would put it, but a dignified aspect to it and even a certain mystique. I think there is some truth to that—as a Conservative, I would say that, wouldn’t I? There is some benefit to sticking with procedures that have proven their worth, even if it requires a little bit of effort to understand them. As a result, I would be very suspicious and concerned, on behalf of the House as an institution, about anything that I thought was dumbing down, but I do not think that is what is at stake here. What is at stake here are intelligent simplifications of language and presentation that allow Members to understand from the get-go how they can contribute constructively and effectively to what we are doing. Although the changes that were put through by previous House Administration officials in relation to the Order Paper did not come out of this process, I think that they were very constructive and helpful. The Order Paper is now unrecognisably better than what it was when I entered Parliament just a few years ago.
Let me say a couple of other things. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and it is important to keep these two things separate. The House will know that I am an extreme sceptic on the restoration and renewal process. The content of what is being proposed is poorly conceived, and there is a lack of a fixed budget. I am also sceptical about the process that has been followed and the lack of what I consider genuinely effective governance, but it is important to recognise that the report talks about that in order to reflect the importance of accessibility to that process. Whatever decision the House makes on restoration and renewal—I hope it will go for a drastically different version of what we are talking about—it will respect the need for full accessibility to this House and the House of Lords. I do not think that is on the table or up for negotiation at all, but one key point is that when we discuss this, we should not regard restoration and renewal as any substitute—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I gently point out to the shadow Leader of the House, and to anybody else planning on contributing, that this is not a debate on restoration and renewal. Although reference to it is of course acceptable, perhaps the substance of Members comments’ should not focus on that.
Jesse Norman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid you may have been slightly misled by your officials. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and specifically refers to it as something that the Committee was invited to look forward to. Therefore, it is not inappropriate to mention it.
The specific point that I am making, if I am allowed to make it, is that we should not defer changes out of an expectation that restoration and renewal, whatever it may be, will be a panacea; we should be getting on with changes as soon as they can be made. One of the things that is so attractive about the work that the House Administration did in responding to the report, and to the Committee, was the energetic way in which it started the process of making changes when they were pointed out. I remember the director general coming forward with several hundred potential changes that could be made, and on which the House Administration had started to make progress.
Whatever the future may bring, let there be no delay in making this House as genuinely open and accessible as it possibly can be. Let me congratulate everyone on all the work that has been done so far, the officials who have made it happen and the Committee.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of the Modernisation Committee, but also as the chair of both the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users and the APPG on access to disability equipment. I come at this issue from that perspective. As many Members know, I am the parent of a wheelchair user and have campaigned on both accessibility and Changing Places toilets, and I will refer to those during my contribution.
Shortly after my election to this place, I asked a series of questions. I have twin daughters, one of whom can access the building, but the other cannot access it in the way that we all can. What if she were to come here, and what are the most easily defined routes around the building? I was very lucky, because I had an accessibility tour, but I will continue to say that those routes are not easily defined for staff or visitors. For visitors, what are the most accessible routes around the building to get from A to B? We need to continue to look at that. If a Member is arranging an event, what are the main access routes for somebody who is a wheelchair user or who has different access needs?
In the report—I was not a member of the Modernisation Committee when the report was undertaken, but I am now—there are recommendations about external accessibility. In my role as chair of both groups, but particularly as chair of the APPG for wheelchair users, we continue to have problems. A significant number of wheelchair users attend our meetings, but there is only a very small number of rooms in this building that we can book. The Chair of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith), is very aware of this—we have written and spoken to each other about it at length—but under the booking system’s current procedures, the APPG cannot be given priority over others, which proves very difficult when only a very small number of rooms are available. It also proves very difficult when we try to provisionally book a room, and the only room our users can use is booked by somebody else. We do need, through the Administration Committee, to look at our booking system procedures.
My hon. Friend is also aware that the APPG for wheelchair users held an event last month at which the majority of speakers were wheelchair users, yet we managed to set up a podium for the speakers to give their speeches from. Reluctantly, we then had to dismantle the podium in front of all the wheelchair users, because it was clearly a completely inappropriate layout for how the wheelchair users in question needed to address the event. As my hon. Friend is aware, and as I said in the Modernisation Committee when we considered this report recently, there continue to be external accessibility changes we need to make in the House.
I note the recommendations in the report on accessible formats. I was really glad when my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) had her East Kent Mencap group visit the building recently, and a number of Members with experience of this went to speak to them about their experiences—I was very privileged to do so. We clearly always need to look at those formats, and ask whether our information is available in an easy read format for them in the way it would be for any other visitors, and whether we can have the same discussions with those users.
Although she is not here today, I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her valuable work since her election to make this building far more accessible. From her viewpoint, the building certainly was not in such a place.
Lastly, I want to refer to Changing Places toilets. A few months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney and I wandered down to the National Portrait Gallery to see what a more modern, accessible Changing Places toilet looks like. We have the issue that, when wheelchair users who attend the all-party groups I chair come to Portcullis House, there is no Changing Places toilet there. The Changing Places toilet we have is in the Lower Waiting Hall, and I would say it is to the original Changing Places standard of about 20 years ago. I have used it with my own daughter, and the hoist is a mobile hoist. The ceiling is very low, and an adult trying to get on it will most probably hit their head on the ceiling. It does not have a moveable sink to get a wheelchair underneath. It is not to the current standards we would expect of a Changing Places toilet. It is the one place where the people who attend the all-party groups I chair can use the toilet, yet it still is not to modern standards. As my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House know, I will continue to lobby to have one of a modern standard in Portcullis House and equally for the existing toilet to be of a modern standard.
As I said in my Changing Places debate last year, we have seen great improvements. My daughter, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, will be 13 this year, and I remember how few Changing Places toilets there were in this part of London 10 years ago. There has been great progress, including under the previous Government, in making sure that local railway stations and tourist destinations have Changing Places toilets. There are the ones at the National Portrait Gallery and the National Gallery down the road; there is the one in IKEA in Oxford Street, which I had to work very hard for and lobby to get its standard up to spec; and, just yesterday, the one at St Paul’s cathedral finally opened. Those places, where visitors are welcome to access the history and culture of our amazing city, do have such facilities, yet this place does not. We need those facilities both in Portcullis House and, to a more modern standard, in the Palace itself.
I thank the Committee for its work. I will continue to press on these areas, including in my role as a member of the Modernisation Committee, but while other workplaces have brought themselves into the 21st century, we must acknowledge that there is work that we still need to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I rise to speak, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both as a member of the Modernisation Committee and, at one point during this inquiry, as a witness. That is also true of the Leader of the House, who gave evidence to the Committee before he became its Chair.
The work we do in this place is complicated, but sometimes it is more complicated than it needs to be, and sometimes we revel in that. I am very conscious that we are having this debate during the final stages of the parliamentary Session and ping-pong, and I as an opposition MP have been leading my colleagues to vote No because we disagree with a Government motion to disagree with a Lords amendment, so we sometimes make this place overly complicated, and the whats and whys of how we do things do not often make sense externally.
I maintain and agree with the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and indeed the Leader of the House, that once we are here, we see that while there are definitely things that could be done better or differently, that is absolutely not the case for all things. We must always be aware of the need not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when considering what we should do. I came into Parliament in December 2019, and over the last two Parliaments—in both 2019 and 2024—we have had a huge turnover of legislators, and understanding why things are the way they are, and what needs to be improved, does take time.
I want to make my remarks in line with the three sections of the Modernisation Committee’s report, and I echo others in commending the House Administration for its constructive response. The reality is that in many circumstances, but particularly in relation to accessibility more generally, it knows fine well what the issues are in this place, and it is as keen to ensure that it makes visible progress on those issues as are we on the Committee and parliamentarians more widely.
However, the report summary talked about clear and prompt action, but we need to acknowledge that it will not be quick. I want to mention our experience yesterday. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on PANS PANDAS, a paediatric condition—have I mentioned that I am running the London marathon for it a week on Sunday?—and yesterday some young people came in for a roundtable in advance of the Backbench Business debate we are hoping to have in a few weeks’ time, because it was important to hear directly from those young people about their experience of the condition. However, one of them was using a wheelchair.
My fantastic team in Westminster, Kathryn and Claudia, incorporated a tour into those young people’s experience as part of their day, but the reality was that the one young person in a wheelchair had a completely different experience from everybody else. There is no access to St Stephen’s Hall or the top of the Westminster steps, which meant she could not see that part of the tour. A moveable ramp for the few steps from Central Lobby to St Stephen’s Hall, which could be used when needed, would be an option. The lift on the accessible lift route is really small. The young person yesterday had one of those quite mobile wheelchairs, but I have been doing bus journeys with wheelchair users in my constituency recently, and the technology is advancing significantly, but the necessary space and access are not. There are also very simple things like the fact that the carpet outside the accessible lift has a really deep pile, which makes it difficult to move across.
Among the evidence that the Committee heard, what we heard from people working on the estate, about the difficulties they face, was pretty arresting. There is the Clerk who cannot progress in his career because he is no longer able to sit at the Table in front of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and therefore his development opportunities are restricted. There is the member of staff for an MP who started on a Speaker’s internship for 12 months—a way of getting people from different backgrounds into Parliament—and was fortunate enough to go on and work for the same MP afterwards, but it took 15 months for the nearest wheelchair accessible toilet to be accessible to him, because he could not open the door before that point.
As a Committee, that was shameful for us to hear and it shows that we have so much more to do. It is important that we remember that Parliament is a place of work and a place of democracy, and when we consider the restoration and renewal proposals—I agree with the shadow Leader of the House—we need to keep accessibility at the forefront, regardless of what our overall opinions on R and R might be.
On procedure and processes, I remember meeting the previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), to discuss the Committee when the Government were looking at setting it up. On how I thought about the Committee, the equivalent that I came up with, from my time in the police, was a tasking and co-ordinating group. The remit of the Committee is wide and our make-up is unique, with the Leader of the House as Chair. The decisions on some elements of the work that we have looked at belong to other Committees, so we should be able to task and co-ordinate with them accordingly. It is right that decisions and inquiries on call lists, electronic voting—we had issues with that this week—and proxies are being led and reported on by the Procedure Committee. Our Committee also recently looked at virtual Select Committee appearances.
The evidence we heard from disabled MPs demonstrates that there is absolutely more that can be done to accommodate them. Also—this has been my own experience of late as a Chief Whip—there are practices that we have utilised in the past that in some ways we have forgotten about, such as nodding through. I am not suggesting that we go back to what is depicted in the James Graham play “This House”, but there are accommodations that can and should be made. We should be constantly challenging ourselves in that regard. Certainly, I see it as part of my role as Chief Whip for my group to make those challenges and ask those questions.
On reading the report, I also thought about my own reflections on covid. As I said, I was a new MP in 2019. There is no doubt that there was an impact on how relationships were built here in Parliament as a result of the practices we had during covid. We participated in the Chamber virtually, which gave no opportunity to learn how to intervene, or to just have those conversations in the Tea Room and the Lobby. It was quite easy to become siloed in our parliamentary groups, and I think all of us here know well that this place is at its best when it works in a constructive, cross-party way to make things progress.
The last section is on communicating what the House does. Generally, the recommendations attempt to strike the right balance between the traditions of the House— I say that as a trustee of the History of Parliament Trust—and the need for Parliament and its processes to be understandable to the wider public. There is clearly more to do, but it is important that we continue to assess whether that balance is being struck correctly.
I want to highlight the work of the Education and Engagement Team. I recently attended an event here in Parliament. Sarah Donald, the headteacher of Dairsie primary school in my constituency, is on the UK Parliament teacher ambassador programme, which will give her the opportunity to be an accredited partner of the Education and Engagement Team. That education and understanding of our democracy and how it works is really important. We are currently having Scottish Parliament elections, so knowing the difference between what an MSP can do and MP can do is important. Indeed, last week I visited Busy Bees nursery in Strathkinness to talk on the topic of “People who help us”. It transpires that it is really quite difficult to explain to four-year-olds what the job of an MP is. I have to say that when I visited my child’s nursery school a number of years ago in the unfirm of a police officer, I was much more popular.
To conclude, the Modernisation Committee is an important feature of this current Parliament. We can and should be in a position to continue to review progress and we should continue to do so as this Parliament progresses. I am very pleased that the House Administration has engaged with the report so constructively and I look forward to revisiting this topic in due course.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip—I have no doubt that she will thrash me in the London marathon in 10 days’ time—for starting the debate. I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who chaired a number of the meetings when I had the pleasure of sitting on the Modernisation Committee. I recognise the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who often talks about this subject with such passion. He makes vital points, particularly with regard to Changing Places toilets. I hope the House Administration is listening. I am sure the Leader of the House is listening, too.
I would like to thank all hon. Members who participated in the evidence sessions, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Torbay (Steve Darling). I should also personally thank the former Member for Harlow for his contribution. He said during the evidence session that he found it so difficult to spend long periods of time in debates that he would come in, make an intervention and then leave—so I have learnt something from him! In all sincerity, he made a really important point.
The shadow Leader of the House made the important point that accessibility issues must not impact on the ability of MPs to do their job in this House. It is also vital that prospective MPs are not put off standing for election because they see this place as being inaccessible. Whatever my political differences might be with Robert, I recognise that he was a brilliant MP for Harlow, and I seek to emulate him in the work he did. It would have been a real tragedy if he had been put off standing for election in the first place because he felt that he could not access democracy in the way that he was able to do.
This matter, however, is not just about us MPs. It is important to recognise the contributions from Clerks, MPs’ staff, House staff and Members of the other place. There is a danger that those of us who do not have accessibility issues do not truly appreciate the challenges for those who do. I thank the Clerks who brought together this important report. Before I make specific reference to parts of the report, I would like to say that, like everybody in this House and the other place, I want us to get this right and for everyone who works in this place not to have barriers to doing their jobs as effectively as possible.
As many Members have mentioned, the report is in three parts: the built environment, procedures and communication. As it rightly recognises in the first instance, there is a realisation that the estate is comprised of a complex combination of buildings that were constructed in a patchwork manner, and that that built environment can create physical and psychological challenges for its users. It is important to recognise that.
One conclusion on accessibility is that we need to learn from disabled people about their experiences of visiting and engaging with Parliament. Again, I think we can have cross-party agreement on that. As briefly mentioned by the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge made reference to the challenges of opening doors, including in Portcullis House. Portcullis House is nowhere near as old as this building, so there is no excuse for such challenges, particularly in relation to toilet doors. We heard a lot about the toilet doors in Portcullis House.
I am pleased that there has been positive action to make the estate more accessible, but I urge, as the report does, the establishment of an accessibility group to include disabled MPs to consider the wider issues. I would add to that, on the back of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, the need to think about disabled visitors to this place and how their voices can be heard, too. On page 22, the report talks about safety and security being the main focus of the House of Commons administration. We would of course all agree with that, but it should not be at the expense of accessibility. Nor does it need to be if we think about how the space supports everybody in it.
On procedure—I promise I will not make my speech too long, Madam Deputy Speaker; I realise that I have gone on for quite a bit—I am someone who has grown to enjoy the procedures of this place. I am a relatively new MP, but as Members across the House will know, I spend quite a lot of time in the Chamber—my place on the Bench is slightly more worn than those around it. I have really enjoyed other MPs coming to me and asking questions about procedure—it has made me feel quite important. However, procedure and how this place works should not be a big secret. Making sure that everybody—particularly those who have accessibility and reasonable adjustment requirements—understands the procedures is really important. I echo what the report says about the importance of formal and informal routes for MPs who require reasonable adjustments, which is essential.
There has been a lot of talk about call lists. Actually, I have found a great solution to the issue of call lists, as has the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon): if a Member talks a lot, they end up getting called last—although I have not been on this occasion. Although call lists do change, the compromise solution could be that Members who have reasonable adjustments can be told where they will be in the list, and then the rest of us can proceed as normal. I think that would be a fairer way to do it. It deals with the issues that those who do not want call lists have raised.
I agree with the usefulness of in-person voting—although I think the Health Secretary might not agree with me, as I have lobbied him during quite a number of votes about issues that affect Harlow—and I think it is important that we have it. However, I recognise that in situations where we have up to 12 votes in a row, as we had this week, there can be real challenges for people who need reasonable adjustments. I absolutely support the point that has been made about proxy voting, the potential use of a digital system and the recommendation about reasonable adjustment cards.
I turn finally to language. I do not want to sound like too much of a traditionalist, but I do like the fact that we have traditional parliamentary language. I think the shadow Leader of the House got it right earlier—and that is not just because he is a Conservative. We want to keep some of those traditions, but we want to make it accessible, too. There is absolutely an achievable compromise to be made between simplification and remembering the customs and history of this place.
I have spoken far more than I expected to on this issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is really important to me and to my constituents.
Chris Vince
Do you want more? Okay. [Laughter.]
To finish, I will say that it is hugely important that democracy is not just for the few. It is so important that everyone has the opportunity to take part in this country’s democracy, and this place is a beacon for democracy in this country like probably no other; actually, it is a beacon for democracy across the world, if we are honest. I do not want there to be barriers for anybody working here. That is hugely important for MPs as it is for Members of the other House, Clerks, House staff and the people who work for us as MPs.
I welcome this report. I think it is the start of a conversation, not the end. I hope we can move forward so that there can be more Members in this place like my predecessor who feel confident and comfortable to participate in the democracy of this country to the fullest amount.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Modernisation Committee has indeed put forward some excellent proposals with regard to accessibility and our procedures. It also refers to the recently published 125-page restoration and renewal proposals, which we at Reform have rebranded “ridiculous and ruinous”, as they are the wrong schemes at the wrong price, based on the wrong brief under the wrong governance structures.
Madam Deputy Speaker, your predecessor in the Chair informed us that this is not the time to debate the matter of restoration and renewal. Bearing in mind, though, that it is a multibillion-pound proposal—possibly up to £40 billion—and the fact that these proposals have been out for a number of weeks, can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or the Leader of the House confirm to hon. Members when these proposals will be debated in full, so that we can expand on our thoughts?
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for his pithy contribution to the debate—
Adam Jogee
Finishing too early is not always a good thing.
I start by extending my condolences to my constituent and great friend back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Rosi Monkman, whose mother died in County Waterford in the Republic of Ireland yesterday. I pay tribute to her mother, Mrs Morrissey, and to Rosi, her husband, their sons and all the family.
As there were so many pithy contributions before me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we have until 5 o’clock, I would like to place on the record my respect for Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. As was discussed in business questions, next Tuesday will mark the 100th anniversary of Her late Majesty’s birth, which is a fitting opportunity for us to remember, reflect and give thanks for a long life of service to our United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
This is an important debate, and I hope people do not think that the number of colleagues present means that it is not taken seriously. I am grateful to all members of the Modernisation Committee from across the House for their work, and for taking on the most Herculean task of making this place fit for the 21st century and creating the best means for us to deliver for the people who sent us here. I will focus my comments on part 2 of the report on procedures and processes, and within that on pages 2, 25 and 30, as well as page 11 of the response.
I would like to acknowledge the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) while she served as Leader of the House— I suppose I should declare an interest as her former Parliamentary Private Secretary. I acknowledge the Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell), for picking up the baton and running with it.
As my office staff would tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as would my wife and family, I am in many ways an analogue politician in a digital age—or, now, an AI age. I much prefer the written word and signing letters by hand over putting some app on my phone to record 30 seconds of myself speaking into a screen. In many ways, it might seem odd that I have taken such a close interest in both this report and the recent report from the Procedure Committee on proxy voting, and, more generally, in the measures being taken to open our national Parliament to all who work here and bring it into the 21st century.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I broadly like the customs and practices of this place; they are age old and they broadly work. Indeed, they have been adopted by nations across the Commonwealth that have developed their own Westminster systems, such as in the Caribbean, Australia, Canada and on the African continent. I would not, therefore, advocate for radical changes that would change how we do things, but I am willing to advocate for sensible and respectful changes that would allow us to do our jobs more properly and effectively.
Everyone has good days and bad days at work and at home. That is the nature of the world that we live in. It has always been that way, and that is not going to change. At work, some things go well; in our case, sometimes we win, and then we hope to keep on winning. It is those victories that allow us to serve in this place—and what a pleasure and privilege it is to do so.
However, as we speak for our people, tackle injustices wherever we find them and work every day to get things done, no Member of this House should be forced to choose between family and doing our job of honouring the trust of the local people who sent us here and holding Ministers to account. The fact that I was forced to make such a choice on Friday 20 June 2025 is something that will stay with me forever. It remains, I am sad to say, the worst day I have had in this job.
My wife received a phone call on 15 June to tell her that her father had taken unwell after many years of living with Parkinson’s. By the following Tuesday, it appeared that he was reaching the end of his life, and that if we wanted to say goodbye, we had to get there as soon as possible—and so we did.
On Friday 20 June, this House was considering the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—an issue of the utmost importance to all of us and to our constituents. Whatever our views, we all wanted to have our voices heard and to be able to take part in this most important of debates. I asked my Whips if a proxy vote could be sorted so that I could represent my constituents and also be with my family, but was told that because it was a private Member’s Bill, a proxy would not be possible, and therefore the only option available to me was to seek my own pairing arrangement with a colleague in the House. To say I was cross is an understatement, but I took on board that response and went on my way to find my own pairing arrangement.
It was clear at that time that my father-in-law was not going to get better, so I asked colleagues in my party and on the Opposition Benches if they would pair with me. I asked the promoter of the Bill, who said that she was not able to help. I asked another colleague—whom I will not name, although I think it is important that I say this—who said that she could not help me because she was doing the numbers for the pro side, and she would therefore be “gleeful” that I could not be there, as it would be one less vote against the Bill.
Given the stress and hassle it causes, no colleague should be forced to find their own pair when a loved one is dying. That is insane and, frankly, inhumane. If a teacher cannot be at work, we get a supply teacher—we all remember the days when a supply teacher was in charge. How that cannot happen in the mother of Parliaments is inexplicable.
We must get a grip of the proxy voting system. Nobody wants to let people off or change how we do things in a radical way, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. We do not want to stop people being here to vote, but we need to be sensible, compassionate and respectful. We need to get a grip because nobody should be forced to experience what I had to.
Having failed to get a pair, despite trying really hard to do so given that my father-in-law was still on the journey to the end of his life, and having spoken to my family, I came to vote on that Friday, because if I had not, my constituents would not have been represented in that debate. As I left this place to go back to my wife and in-laws, my wife called to tell me that her father had died. I will never forget that phone call. I received it only because I was unable to get a proxy or a pair. That remains the worst day that I have had in this job.
The Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said that all Members should be able to do their jobs properly, and that is true, but it should not come at the expense of our family commitments—not least as a loved one reaches the end of their life. It is not lost on me that we were voting on assisted dying, but I was given no assistance by this House, or by the powerful people in it, to do my job and be with my family when they needed me most.
Nobody wants a sob story—I fully accept that—but this is my experience, and I hope that we will look at how we can do things differently so that nobody has to experience what we have. We need to consider the eligibility rules for Members seeking a proxy; in my view, the current rules are far too narrow. I read the Procedure Committee report, and I hope that, together, the Procedure and Modernisation Committees will be able to get us to the right place sooner rather than later. I say this not to seek sympathy but to be helpful, so that we finally make our Parliament compassionate and fit for purpose.
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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Leader of the House to speak, with the leave of the House.
Jesse Norman
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a couple of words about the excellent contributions to the debate.
I will, if I may, pick up on a couple of points. I do not think that anything more needs to be added to what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) said about properly accessible toilets; he was absolutely right about that. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made a well observed point about the diversity of experience and views among wheelchair users. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his gracious words about his predecessor, the brilliant Robert Halfon.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for the sceptic’s view on restoration and renewal. I ask the Leader of the House whether it might be possible to have two debates on that. We could first have what one might call a digestive debate, to discuss the actual process of R and R, how it will work and what might be involved, and then a second debate on the motion. The figure of £40 billion is so big that it would be helpful for the House to pre-consider the matter, before considering the motion.
I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) very much for his moving remarks about his experience on the assisted dying private Member’s Bill. Finally, the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) reminded us how difficult it is to replicate the specific experience of individual disabled MPs, and how important it is to listen to what they have said. With all that in mind, I thank the Committee and the Leader of the House for all the work they have done, and the Administration for its response.
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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for notice of her point of order. The issue that caused the fault on the pass reader voting system on Tuesday was quickly identified by the Parliamentary Digital Service later that evening and rectified. PDS and other House officials are now looking at the lessons learned from the incident and what additional resilience measures can be put in place to support the voting system. I put on record my thanks to all House officials involved for quickly facilitating the paper Division system on Tuesday so that proceedings could continue with minimal delay.