Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.