Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I have brought forward these motions today seeking approval for recommendations by the Modernisation Committee and the Committee of Privileges and for changes to the Standing Orders following the machinery of government changes. I will briefly address each motion.

I should make it clear that in speaking to the motions relating to the Modernisation Committee I am effectively wearing two hats—first, as the Leader of the House and, secondly, as Chair of the Modernisation Committee. I want to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues on the Modernisation Committee for their hard work in developing these proposals. I also pay tribute to the Chairs and Members of the Liaison Committee and Procedure Committee, who fed into our work and have been supportive throughout.

Colleagues will know that virtual participation by Members in Select Committee meetings is currently not permitted. Committees routinely hear oral evidence from witnesses virtually, but Members themselves must be in the room. There are, of course, good reasons for the emphasis on in-person participation. However, when the Modernisation Committee held its consultation exercise in the autumn of 2024, it heard from people who argued for the benefits of virtual participation. The issue arose during our previous accessibility inquiry, so the Committee decided to consider the matter further. As a result, the Committee is recommending that virtual participation by Members in Select Committee meetings should be possible for limited and specific purposes. The very strong expectation, however, is that in-person participation will continue to be the default.

Let me be clear about the specific circumstances. They are, first, for business continuity reasons when access to the parliamentary estate is significantly restricted or prevented entirely; and, secondly, when reasonable adjustments need to be made for an individual Committee member on the grounds of health and wellbeing, following guidance produced by the Liaison Committee.

Although the circumstances set out by the Modernisation Committee in its report are very specific, the possibility of virtual participation is none the less a significant change. I want colleagues who are perhaps more sceptical about the value of virtual participation to be assured that the Modernisation Committee was conscious of that when it made the proposals and has worked with colleagues on the Liaison Committee to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. If agreed today, the motion will come into effect on 30 November. The delay is necessary to ensure that technological support is in place.

The second Modernisation Committee motion will introduce a scheme for acting Select Committee Chairs. There is currently no formal mechanism to enable a Select Committee Chair to take a period of extended leave from their role—for parental leave, for example. This situation arose on the Health and Social Care Committee last year, and although in that case the situation was handled locally, it raised a number of procedural and practical issues. As a result, we are proposing the introduction of a new scheme to allow a Chair to take a formal period of leave and for another member of the Committee to stand in for them and have the same powers as the Chair.

We spent some time considering who would be eligible to be an acting Chair, and we decided that the acting Chair must be a member of the Committee and that for those Chairs elected by the whole House, the Committee should appoint an acting Chair who comes from the same party as the Chair, unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise. Once again, I am grateful to colleagues on the Liaison Committee who produced detailed guidance that sets out how this will work in practice.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

I was somewhat confused about the concept that after the period of seven months had elapsed the decision was then given to the Chair of the Liaison Committee, when the Speaker would have already deemed that that individual was entitled to leave from the House generally. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could provide clarification on why that decision was taken.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

The reason we need to look ahead if this change happens in a Committee is that we need to keep the issue under review. We need a clear set of rules about what will happen at the beginning, and it needs to be kept in our thoughts as we go forward. There is a similar system in place for when someone gets a proxy vote—permission needs to be given for that to continue. There are some comparisons.

The motions are temporary in nature. If the House agrees them today, they will run until the end of the current Parliament. There will be time to assess how they have worked in practice and whether the House wants to make the changes permanent. I hope that colleagues agree that both Modernisation Committee motions improve the flexibility available for Select Committees and Members, while preserving and enhancing the ability of Committees to perform their vital functions.

I turn to the motion relating to the Committee of Privileges’ report into the actions of the Charity Commission. I welcome the Committee’s consideration of this matter. As the Committee sets out, this report is, at its heart, about the provision of information to the House and whether it is appropriate to use the courts to prevent information from being provided. The report outlines that the Charity Commission had sought a judicial review seeking to prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner For Administration from laying a special report before the Commons. The case was referred to the Committee to consider whether, in seeking to prevent the flow of information to Parliament, the Charity Commission’s action constituted a contempt of this House. As the report outlines, the obstruction of provision of information to Parliament is wholly unacceptable. The Committee concludes that the Charity Commission committed a contempt of Parliament in seeking to prevent the laying of the report.

The Committee recommended that the chief executive of the Charity Commission should apologise to the House for repeatedly saying that the commission’s legal action was not intended to quash the laying of the report, when that was precisely its purpose, and that the board of the commission, which backed the legal action, should take responsibility for the contempt and should apologise to the House. I am pleased to say that since the Committee’s report was published, the Charity Commission has provided such apologies.

The Government have confidence in the leadership of the Charity Commission and are confident that the board is taking action to address the concerns raised by the Committee’s report and learn lessons for its handling of similar cases going forward. The motion invites the House to agree the report and endorse its conclusions and recommendations. I hope that the House will support the motion.

Finally, I turn to the motion relating to Standing Orders following the machinery of government changes announced in July. The work of our Select Committees is extremely important, and today’s changes demonstrate the value that we place on them. The motions before the House ensure that all existing Committees remain in place and are aligned to the Departments and bodies that they scrutinise. With respect to the changes on science and technology, given the abolition of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we are reverting to the set-up that the Committee had prior to the establishment of that Department. I hope that Members will support these motions. I commend them to the House.