Modernisation Committee

Oral evidence: Access to the House of Commons and its Procedures, HC 755

Tuesday 24 June 2025

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 24 June 2025.

Other versions

• Download this transcript as a standard print PDF
• Download this transcript as a large print PDF
• Watch the meeting

Members present

Lucy Powell (Chair); Mr Alex Barros-Curtis; Sarah Coombes; Marie Goldman; Paulette Hamilton; Joy Morrissey; Jesse Norman; and Chris Vince.

Examination of witnesses

Questions 107-124

Witnesses: Fazilet Hadi, Head of Policy at Disability Rights UK; Ismail Kaji, Parliamentary and Government Engagement Officer at Mencap; and Gillian Rudd, Representative at the Inclusive Parliament coalition.

Chair: Good morning, everyone. My name is Lucy Powell MP, and I am Chair of the Modernisation Committee. Thank you so much for coming. This might feel like a big deal to come here, but this is absolutely not intended to be in any way a difficult experience. We are very interested to hear your views and experiences. That is what today is all about—to hear from you.

As Chair, I will first ask everyone around the Committee table to introduce themselves, but as we come to the questions and issues, people can again explain who they are. During this meeting, my colleague Sarah Coombs—whom I will introduce next—might take over the Chair, but we will see. For now, it is with me. I thank you again for coming and being part of this experience today. Sarah, will you introduce yourself?

Sarah Coombes: I am Sarah Coombes, the MP for West Bromwich. I am Lucy Powell’s Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Jesse Norman: I am Jesse Norman. I am the Member of Parliament for Hereford and South Herefordshire, and I am shadow Leader of the House.

Chair: We will have to explain what the jobs are.

Jesse Norman: You will have to say, as Leader of the House.

Chair: Yes, I am Leader of the House. Jesse and I are described as opponents, but for these purposes we are very much colleagues and work together in Committee.

Marie Goldman: Hello and thank you for coming today. My name is Marie Goldman. I am the Member of Parliament for Chelmsford.

Mr Barros-Curtis: Good morning. I am Alex Barros-Curtis. I am the Member of Parliament for Cardiff West.

Joy Morrissey: I am Joy Morrissey and I am the MP for Beaconsfield.

Paulette Hamilton: I am Paulette Hamilton. I am the Member of Parliament for Birmingham Erdington.

Chris Vince: I am Chris Vince. I am the MP for Harlow.

Chair: We are also joined around the horseshoe table by two Clerks of the Committee, who do not speak or contribute to sittings, but take notes and make sure that we run things smoothly and so on.

Before I bring in Sarah, who will ask the first question, I will explain what we are doing. We are the Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons, established to look at making the Commons a more effective and inclusive workplace, with a better culture and higher standards, which is not so much of an interest to you today. We have been doing an inquiry on accessibility to the House of Commons—we did a big call for evidence, in which anyone could come to us about anything, and that came through very strongly.

As our national Parliament, we really are not in any way a standard bearer for accessibility. Many Members of Parliament, staff members and people who want to access the Commons and Parliament are unable to do so, because of our physical accessibility, our language, our procedures and a whole range of things like that. We have heard lots of evidence from people over recent weeks, and we are delighted that you are here today to give your experiences on behalf of those whom you represent. To lead off, Sarah will ask some of the questions.

Q107  Sarah Coombes: To introduce myself again, I am Sarah Coombes, the MP for West Bromwich. Ismail, what would be useful to know when preparing for a visit to Parliament?

Ismail Kaji: It is a good thing to have a prep before meeting anyone in Parliament. For people with learning disabilities, like myself, I would prefer someone to give me a call, or online on a Teams call, and to have a preparation meeting just for the introductions and getting to know what the visit will be about, who I will be meeting, providing accessible information—easy read information—and understanding my needs. As I have a learning disability, it is about being a bit more alert in general and making sure that all the things I need are clear to me.

Q108  Marie Goldman: My name is Marie Goldman, and I am the MP for Chelmsford. Ismail, how can we ensure that information for visitors is accessible?

Ismail Kaji: That is a good question. From my point of view, it is very important to have accessible information, easy read information. If we look at the bigger picture of Parliament, I feel that it should be accessible to everyone.

Technology is very fast, very quick nowadays, and we see things going quickly, so it is very important to make sure that your technology side is very accessible and that your websites are very accessible, being easy to access and to find things on them. Also, when it comes to paper view, it is making sure that that is accessible as well, like having pictures and using photo symbols, and most importantly, that the content is very clear in understanding what the wording means.

When we visit Parliament, it is good to have a bit more when we enter the actual entrance, more of a welcome—to have someone there to say, “Oh, hi, welcome to Parliament. We’re providing accessible information.” It does not have to be just for someone who is vulnerable; it can be for anyone, for everyone in the public, because then at least you do not miss out anyone who has the extra needs. It is a good thing to have more inclusive diversity when it comes to Parliament, and having more of the right nature.

Chair: We have heard very strongly in this inquiry that this is not about having special rules for some people, but about having an inclusive culture for everyone. Paulette, you have the next question.

Q109  Paulette Hamilton: My name is Paulette Hamilton and I am from Birmingham Erdington. My question is for Fazilet and Gillian. Do you have any reflections, based on the work and expertise of your organisations, with regards to visitor information?

Fazilet Hadi: I am Fazilet Hadi, head of policy at Disability Rights UK. It is very good to meet you all. I would echo what Lucy just said about approaching this from a mindset of, “how do we create an inclusive environment for all”?

There are 16 million disabled people in the UK and we have such a range of needs—learning disabilities, autistic people, people with sensory impairments, people with energy-limiting conditions, and people with mental health issues, anxiety and so on—so it is important that we start from the premise that we want Parliament to be a welcoming place for everyone, as Ismail has said.

On the question of information, I think there have been steps forward but building on what Ismail has said, people want to be prepared for coming here. However familiar you all are with it, it does still feel a little bit intimidating and scary for people. How do we create information that can take away some of that fear? Maybe information on what you can expect when you come through security, on the kind of facilities there are here, where the toilets are, what you can expect when you go to the Public Gallery, so a little bit of written or web video information helping people before they get here.

Then, how do we make what is going on in Parliament understandable for everyone? I think you have had evidence that some of the language used and some of the debates can feel very remote, but actually they are discussing things that are going to affect all of our lives. How can we as the public and disabled people be brought in more to an understanding of how things work and what is being discussed? I think we have got something to build on, but we could think much more creatively about the information.

Q110  Paulette Hamilton: Gillian, would you like to add anything to that?

Gillian Rudd: I absolutely agree with colleagues on the panel on the points they have made. I am representing the Inclusive Parliament coalition. That is a coalition of over 30 organisations representing people with communication difference, disability and difficulty. What we hear is similar to what colleagues have already said, which is that visiting Parliament feels very inaccessible.

One of the things we would like to see, similar to what Ismail said, is frontline staff and security teams having training in supporting people with communication difference and disability. There are options already out there, such as the Communication Access UK package. That takes less than an hour to do, has been co-produced with people with communication disability and difference, and shows how people can be supported every day.

We would also like to see thinking about potential adjustments to the estate to make it easier in terms of signposting and wayfinding. In addition to the tech support, can there be symbol support? Ismail talked about photo symbols, which is a great resource. BSL support as well, so thinking about how we can embed that across the estate.

Chair: These first two questions are about visitor experience and then we will come on to the Parliamentary procedure side.

Q111  Sarah Coombes: You have all touched on the role staff can play. Ismail, what role can staff play in supporting disabled visitors?

Ismail Kaji: First, I am delighted that the Committee has called me and is listening to my views on this topic. I feel that Parliament needs to start on the basics side when it comes to accessible information and communication.

If people who have additional needs or need additional support can directly get in touch with people who they want to get in contact with, they can try to understand a person’s needs better and what support they need. That will help the person and, at the same time, the person in Parliament in their job, and give them a bit more understanding: “This person has these needs, and what do I need to do? I need to do this bit, this bit and that bit.” That will help both ways.

It is also very important to get to know the person a bit better, finding out what needs they have. Some people may need communication in small chunks so that they can remember things, or some people may find photo symbols easy to reflect the content of what they are saying. Everyone’s needs are different: my needs will be very different from those of everyone else. If you were to talk to me, I would say to use very small paragraphs and accessible wording, making sure that there is no jargon and that it is clear, and maybe asking me if I have understood what has been said to me.

Q112  Joy Morrissey: Is there anything else that you would like to add?

Fazilet Hadi: On staff, Ismail raised the issue of the welcome. When you come in, it is a security check rather than a welcome. I think that it needs thinking about: how could that be combined, or are they two different functions? I was involved in a mass lobby where over 100 disabled people came to Parliament a few weeks ago.

I have always had great service. I have a white stick because I am blind, so I am very visible in a sense. People know how to respond to me—they do not grab me and I probably get a very good service. Other colleagues were not so pleased. People who have hidden disabilities or who feel pain felt that the way they were patted down and touched could have been done better. I suppose that is partly speed as well, and perhaps people are not communicating sufficiently about what is going to happen. Is there any adjustment that should be made?

Another issue was that people were not clear on what they could bring in or were not allowed to bring in. Some people had medication and things to help them mend their equipment if it went wrong. I think there was a bit of confusion about what you could bring in. Some people felt that while colleagues at the front desk understood that wheelchair users could not use steps, there was a little less understanding about the fact that some people cannot walk that easily—they are still trying to be mobile but they cannot manage steps.

There was also a person who exhibited involuntary movements, and some of my colleagues said that staff were asking whether he should be removed from the premises. He was not removed in the end—people explained that he was not a danger to anyone, he was just exhibiting movements that were part of his own impairment or health condition.

There is a whole load of things at that front desk that can give people a good experience or a bad experience. It is like anything that we use as a consumer—you have probably made up your mind in the first five minutes whether you like the experience. I do not want to put all the burden on those staff, because it is about process, communication and speed, and it is what their role it. That’s some feedback on that welcome/security check.

Gillian Rudd: I absolutely agree. To add some examples in relation to people with communication difference and disability, we have had reports of people who are visiting being told that there is not a quiet room, or a space that they can retreat to. We have had helpful conversations with Yohanna as part of the preparation for this meeting. She told us that there are those facilities, but obviously not all staff have access to that information, and people have been given incorrect information, meaning that they have not had access to the adjustments that they need.

Similarly, we have had reports from speech and language therapists who have supported people with communication difference to visit Parliament and to attend events. Those people have been told that they are not able to bring in communication supports.

Some people use high or low-tech augmentative and alternative communication supports, such as symbols, objects or high-tech devices, and people have on occasion been told that they are not allowed to bring those through security, or into rooms. I do not think that we would do that for other forms of disability support. I do not for a moment think that that was done with any ill or malicious intent. The problem is in awareness and understanding, and we need to change that to make sure that everyone is able to access Parliament in the way that we want them to.

Chair: Those are all important points and good ideas, particularly the idea of there being a friendly face on arrival. Thinking about your experience, perhaps we slightly endure visitors rather than seeing ourselves as the mother of all Parliaments and being open and welcoming to visitors, because, of course, security has ended up becoming the paramount concern in that regard.

Q113  Marie Goldman: Ismail, do you have any other examples of when Parliament has not been accessible?

Ismail Kaji: The information that you see in Parliament is not accessible. It is a lot to read, and it is not accessible. Finding your way in Parliament is also very challenging, because people with learning disabilities find it hard when it comes to directions. Sometimes it is hard to find your way between different meetings.

Communication can also be quite challenging for people with learning disabilities. If someone is trying to communicate with you and give you information, sometimes it does not click with you well, where it is difficult to follow. Those sorts of things can be quite challenging. There is not enough when it comes to accessibility, or an easier way for vulnerable people with learning disabilities, or other disabilities, and many other vulnerable people.

In my role I come to Parliament quite often and for me, having learning disabilities, when it comes to directions, finding where to go is quite challenging. Sometimes I find communication with politicians hard to follow. When a lot of information is being thrown at me, and words are being used as jargon, it is hard for me to understand. I find those sort of things challenging.

Chair: That is really helpful.

Q114  Chris Vince: Thanks to all three of you for coming along and providing evidence. It has already been a very useful session. My question is a simple follow-up, to ask Gillian and Fazilet if you want to share your experiences of instances when Parliament has not been as accessible as it could be. You have mentioned the front counter, shall we say, but are there other examples where you have found moving around the estate problematic?

Fazilet Hadi: I definitely could not move anywhere on my own in Parliament, because unlike other places where I could probably learn a route, I do not think that is going to happen here. I pretty much always either ask for assistance, which I get, or I bring someone with me. Just thinking about others, with the physical building, you are starting with a bit of a disadvantage. Ismail has mentioned some of the features, such as heavy doors, lighting and a lack of signage. I think these are all issues that have been brought up at previous evidence sessions.

There are not enough places to sit for people who need to take a breath before setting out on the second part of their journey, and it is not always clear where the toilets are. There are a lot of physical aspects of the building, but there are communication aspects, too, which I am sure Gillian will cover better than me. In the public gallery, people have asked if there could be live subtitling and if the speakers could be put in a different position to enhance hearing when using the loop system. There might be other communication issues with the way signs are written because, as Ismail said, we need them in plain English, legible and colour contrasted.

One of the physical problems we had when we came on the lobby—this is precise—was the stairlift that gets you to W2, W3 and the prayer room. Apparently, it does not accommodate the bigger power wheelchairs. It is also very slow and complex to use, and that caused visitors a lot of trouble on that day. I know it is a very practical point. I am also a bit confused about where changing places and toilets are, whether they are easily accessible and whether we need one or two of them.

Q115  Chair: Toilets have been a big feature of our inquiry. Gillian?

Gillian Rudd: I agree absolutely with colleagues. In addition to what I have already said, I would add that the ad hoc arrangements for BSL interpretation really affect many of the people that we represent. Because the funding is not centralised for interpretation, it has resulted in a bit of a postcode lottery, so some people have come to meet their MP and they have had access to BSL interpretation support, and some have not. One of our asks in terms of something to consider would be centralised funding for interpretation support to ensure that everybody has the same access.

I think lots of people with communication difference and disability assume that Parliament will not be accessible and therefore do not visit. A really positive step forward would be to have people with lived experience of communication difference and disability and other disabilities on some sort of advisory board, or to take part in some sort of audit, so that they are able to input directly both on the changes that are needed, but also the impact those changes have and whether they are fit for purpose.

It is so great to be here and to be part of these conversations, and I am really pleased that you are having this conversation and you have this emphasis on this topic, but keeping that momentum going and having that lived experience all the way through the work and on an ongoing basis would be really important.

Chair: That is great, and some of that work has already begun as a result of our inquiry, such as having an overarching body to look at these things that pulls together all the different strands of Parliament. You are absolutely right; unless we have that lived experience feeding through absolutely everything we do, it is going to take a long time.

We now have some questions that are more about parliamentary procedure and the way in which we work and communicate.

Q116  Marie Goldman: Ismail, are there any parts of Parliament that you find inaccessible—for example, things that MPs do, or when you are trying to find information about what is happening in Parliament?

Ismail Kaji: As I work for Mencap as a parliamentary and Government engagement officer, I come to Parliament most of the time in my role and I meet lots of different MPs. On the MPs’ side, when it comes to political language, I think MPs should stick to political language in conversations between one MP and another, but when it comes to the public eye, or conversations with myself or our two colleagues here, I do not think that politicians—or anyone—should use political language with the public.

I do not work in Parliament and I do not know the political language, and it is quite jargony for me to understand. Using very simple language that everyone understands is the best way. When you have meetings, like the meeting today, it is also important to use very simple ways of communicating so that everyone can understand and it is more inclusive. Otherwise, some people may understand and some people may not, and it can be quite difficult to follow meetings.

It is also a good thing for all staff in Parliament—for MPs and those with different roles—to have learning disability training to help them understand the challenges that people with learning disabilities face, including challenges with language and the barriers they face when it comes to communication.

Q117  Sarah Coombes: Gillian, I am wondering whether you have any thoughts on things that MPs do or any procedure that is inaccessible, in your view, or anything that we should change.

Fazilet Hadi: I am glad that we have got on to engagement—Ismail started it. Not all disabled people just want to visit Parliament; some of us want to be heard. Some groups have complained to us that some Bill Committees and other Committees are not very open or responsive when disabled people want to be heard.

I get that it is a balance, but when a Bill directly affects disabled people and we are the ones with the lived experience, some thought has to be given to giving us the open spaces and engagement opportunities that enable us to feel that our voices have been directly heard. Certainly on the Mental Health Bill, we have heard that has not always been the sense. There were also some complaints that not enough disabled people had been engaged during the assisted dying Bill Committee process back in January.

Apart from questions about what the procedure says and whether Committees are exhorted to really listen to lived experience—it is not only disabled people; there will be others who are really impacted by Bills and what the House is discussing—I wanted to bring up the question of online discussion.

At the moment, there is no provision to have an all-party parliamentary group meeting in a room with good digital facilities. Certainly disabled people, but also other people living around the country, cannot always visit Parliament in person—it is just not possible—yet they still want to listen to an APPG meeting or to be questioning, and so on, online. It cannot happen at the moment for an APPG. I know there is a bigger issue about the extent to which Parliament enables hybrid working for its own parliamentarians, but on the issue of engagement of citizens, I think that, really, every room should have digital and in-person facilities. It just feels archaic not to.

Gillian Rudd: Again, I agree with colleagues. As for additional considerations for people with communication difference and disability, the language that is used in Parliament can be impenetrable.

Chair: Yep!

Gillian Rudd: I know that that has been a topic of conversation already and that you have had Dr Ruth Fox from the Hansard Society talking about some of the language. I am an academic and a speech and language therapist by background, and I often do not understand what is happening or what people are talking about. When we think about what that looks like for the general public or visitors, we should remember that that is only exacerbated if communication is harder for you.

I would really like us to think about the balance between preserving history and ceremony, and actually making sure that Parliament can do the job that it is here to do, which is to represent the people, provide a voice for the people and provide information to people. There is lots of established information that the average reading age in the UK is nine to 11; lots of what comes out of Parliament is not pitched at that level. So I think that the language that we use is a really key thing to think about.

Then there is the range of formats within which information is provided and the speed at which it is provided—so, thinking about live BSL interpretation of debates and events. That does happen, but often only for deaf-specific issues rather than as a matter of course. Actually, deaf people are understandably interested in all the range of issues that people are interested in, so we should think about having that in place more routinely.

Thinking about the speed and timing of things, because the Equality Act does not apply, people do not have the option to ask for reasonable adjustments like extra time for conversations and events or for speaking, so is there an option to build in some mechanism for that? How do we make  Parliament more accessible for people with that wide range of communication difference, difficulty and disability?

Chair: That is really helpful. Jesse has a follow-up question.

Q118  Jesse Norman: It is actually a question for Fazilet, but it picks up the point you have just made, Gillian, about the importance of linking accessibility to effective representation, so that rather than just thinking of it as a good thing in itself—and it is a very good thing in itself—we make it part of the function of Parliament.

Fazilet, my question for you is this. You mentioned concerns about the assisted dying Bill and whether there had been enough time for the voices of disabled people to be included in that parliamentary process. The question is: do you think that in general it would be better if more time for consultation was built into the parliamentary process, for example through things like Green Papers—sorry, that’s a bit of jargon: consultative papers—that would allow more time, give more recognition and possibly allow more discussion before Bills came to Parliament? 

Fazilet Hadi: Green Papers are definitely a good mechanism to get as many people as possible to respond, and they need to be a minimum of three months, because it does take people longer. We are not all working in Parliament, so it can take a while to get the word out and then to listen to people and submit their views back.

I also think that, even once the process has started, there needs to be an opportunity. Maybe it should be a different opportunity, but there needs to be one, even when the Bill has started—particularly in Committee stage, where there is more possibility to listen to people and hear what they are saying. So I think it should be both; it is so important.

Your point about representation is really well made. Parliament belongs to all of us, in a way. If we had 24% of MPs sharing that they have a disability, that would be about 160 MPs, and that would necessitate a very different type of Parliament.

I don’t know to what extent people in the current culture feel that they should not share disability, because it is almost seen as a weakness, but I suspect it is a lot more people than those who have openly shared. That says a lot about the culture of the House of Commons, which still has quite a macho feel: you need stamina, and you need to sit around for hours. I know you have taken evidence from disabled MPs, but I think there is a bit of a culture of survival of the fittest, which is a shame. 

Q119  Marie Goldman: I will start with you again, Ismail. How can the language and the way people talk in Parliament be more accessible? We have touched on that, but is there anything you would like to add?

Ismail Kaji: If you are asking for my personal view, it would make my job a bit easier, because I do a lot of research on Parliament, MPs and peers. That is part of my role, so communication is a big thing that can be changed. The language can be adapted. As I said before, it is about making sure no political language is used. If it is used—if it can’t be taken away for some reason—you should try to explain what the wording means. It should be designed in a way that ensures there is not too much information for the person to follow, and you should have spaces between small paragraphs so people can follow a bit better.

You can also look at different ways and different ideas. For example, I feel that content should be accessible and paragraphs should be more spaced out, but another person may want it in a different format. There should be lots of different formats, technology-wise, on the website or for things that are given to you—letters or invitations—so that the information given out is accessible. It doesn’t matter whether the person is vulnerable or not; when you give something to a person, you should make sure the information stands out and is clear to everybody. That would make life easier for everyone.

Communication when it comes to speaking to someone in Parliament is also very important. If you are listening to a speech or having a conversation with an MP, you should make sure the MP is talking at a good speed and in a good way, when it comes to understanding. They should give extra time and make reasonable adjustments. You should make sure the MP bears in mind that someone may need reasonable adjustments—more time or any other reasonable adjustment—so they need to be alert to that.

Chair: I think Paulette has the follow-up to that. I am conscious of time. We are going to try to finish at about half-past 12, so we have about six more minutes. But we have covered a lot of issues, which is great. There have been some strong messages in what you have said.

Q120  Paulette Hamilton: I am following up to ask if Fazilet and Gillian have anything to add. I will start with Gillian, then go straight to Fazilet.

Gillian Rudd: I agree with Ismail on the range of formats. What we would ask for is that real-time BSL easy-read and captioned summaries of debates and Bills are produced alongside traditional formats, and that public-facing platforms, such as parliamentlive.tv, use live captioning and BSL interpretation as standard. The other thing that I would ask for is a feedback loop—not just that we do it, but that we check that it is working as well as it can do, and that we continue to collate feedback and refine the process.

Fazilet Hadi: I very much want to see a Parliament in which 160 MPs are proud to say that they have a disability or impairment, and that they have no problem with that, and the rest of their colleagues have no problem with it.

Q121  Chair: Would that be the proportion of the population that reports a disability?

Fazilet Hadi: Yes, 24%—don’t hold me to the exact number!

Chair: No, that sounds about right.

Fazilet Hadi: At the moment, the ambition from everyone is that more disabled people are in the workforce. I think Parliament needs to model that. You cannot have a Parliament that models the opposite—that it is not easy. If you focus on the outcome—which is the best debate and legislation—people will get there in different ways. But they will need different tools, accessible information in the format they can best use it, and technology support, and they might need to give their views with a bit more time.

There will be different ways of doing the job, which should be encompassed, but the outcome should be better representation, better debate and better laws. I think that Parliament really needs to begin to anticipate how it could be set up for disability, and not for it to always be a kind of add-on: how could it anticipate what disabled MPs need?

Of course, you will always make reasonable adjustments, but if it is a more inclusive workspace, those adjustments will be fewer, because you will have met some of them head-on, and everyone will be benefiting from that inclusion. I return to the subject of not giving up on all hybrid and digital activity. It may not be suitable for everything, but surely there are aspects of the business of the House for which it is very suitable.

Chair: I fully agree with everything you have just said. As the UK’s lawmakers, we should be the model for how organisations and workplaces can be more inclusive, to encourage and enable more people to participate and work in them. Hopefully, we are also taking some early steps in the digital participation aspect. Sarah has the final question. If you will forgive me, I need to leave. Sarah will wrap things up shortly.

[Sarah Coombes took the Chair]

Q122  Chair: Ismail, this question is for you first. Do you have any ideas about how Parliament can learn about the needs of people with learning disabilities, specifically? I think you have expertise in that matter.

Ismail Kaji: First things first, I think that my work has reached out to me when it comes to learning disabilities. I feel that training is really important. We have also touched on the fact that we have quite a few disabled MPs. But one thing I was thinking is that the disabled side and the learning disability side are two different things.

The disabled side is more about physical disability, and when it comes to learning disability, it is a bit broader. From my point of view, it is good for Parliament to hire people with learning disabilities and to give them a full-time paid job, as Parliament can learn every day. Mencap employs me and many other people with learning disabilities, and it learns by understanding the person’s everyday needs and how they learn differently.

You asked me before how Parliament can be made more accessible, and I would think about the colour coding that they have on the floors of hospitals. If Parliament had that sort of colour-coded design for directions, it would be a lot easier to follow a line to get to a room. Parliament can sometimes be very busy, and it is very short-staffed and short of support. If the colour coding is there, a person can at least follow that to get to their room. For example, when I came to this Committee Room today, if there had been a red line, I would have been able to follow that all the way here, which would have been a lot easier and less stressful.

Chair: That would be good for new MPs as well, so that we could get around easier.

Ismail Kaji: Absolutely, yes.

Q123  Chair: Fazilet and Gillian, do you have any particular thoughts on the needs of people with learning disabilities, or anything else that you would like to add before the end of the session?

Fazilet Hadi: I think there is definitely a need for changes to systems, processes and rules, just to make things simpler, more inclusive, more welcoming and written in more plain English, which would create a Parliament that we can all understand and feel part of, and that belongs to us and represents us.

Also, going hand in hand with that system change, you should maybe look at training for all staff and all MPs and their offices so that they are more confident in supporting individuals within that wider process by listening to them and giving them space and time so that their views can be heard. It would also help them just to understand the composition and diversity of the population, and how to be inclusive in the way that they run their offices, work and contribution to Parliament.

Q124  Chair: We have definitely learned a lot in these sessions, as MPs on this Committee, and I think it would really benefit other colleagues across the House to have the same experience. Gillian, do you have any final thoughts?

Gillian Rudd: Thinking specifically about the experiences of people with learning disabilities, if you do not grow up with politics, it is very hard to understand the system and how it works. When people go to contact their MP, people have very mixed experiences. It is quite common on websites for there not to be any information about reasonable adjustments for meetings, or for it not to be absolutely clear where meetings might be held and how long they may last. It might also not be made clear who you are meeting with if you go to a surgery, whether it is the MP themselves or a caseworker, which all acts as a barrier to people accessing support.

Thinking about how we can clarify that, the level of comfort that MPs have themselves varies significantly—you will be in a better position than me to comment on that. Some people have had lots of contact with people with learning disabilities through family, work or socially, and some people have not. They are then working as an MP and do not feel comfortable engaging with different communities. We need to be thinking about how we can level the playing field there, so it is not a postcode lottery for constituents, and how MPs can actively engage with people with learning disabilities through their local community by going to groups. Again, I have seen it done really well, but it is about how we can make that more routine.

As a general point, I would really invite a reflection on the culture within debates and conversations more generally. What I am thinking about there are specific examples where people with communication difference or disability have been mocked, accused of being drunk or asked to speed up. There are more general examples where people have stumbled over their words when giving a speech or sharing a view, and I have seen jeering and people mocking.

Just last year, we had somebody stumbling over their words and senior politicians mocked them, which then became a news feature. What does that say to people with communication difference and disability about whether this is a space for them? If MPs mock people and speakers, such as other MPs when they trip over their words, how on earth can you feel comfortable going to talk to them and sharing your views? I would really love to see a conversation about how you all treat each other. I see really positive, collegiate conversation in spaces like this, but that is not always represented in what we see in the wider forums, and I think that is really important.

Chair: Definitely. The way we behave in the Chamber and what the public see on TV matters a lot, and it has much wider implications than just that room. Thank you so much; this has been a really insightful session, and I think we have all learned a lot. It has been very useful for our accessibility inquiry overall. Thank you again for your time.