Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Keep going!

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Chris Vince]

His speech was a bit shorter than mine, to be fair.

[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.