Inclusive Parliament Coalition welcomes House of Commons modernisation report

The Inclusive Parliament Coalition, of which the RCSLT is a part, has welcomed the House of Commons Modernisation Committee’s report on Access to the House of Commons and its Procedures, published , while warning that significant gaps remain in the reforms needed to make Westminster fully accessible to signers and people with communication disabilities, difficulties, or differences.

The Committee’s report sets out a series of recommendations to address long-standing accessibility barriers across the Parliamentary estate, House procedures, and the way Parliament communicates its work. It includes commitments to improve physical access, embed accessibility into organisational culture and expand the use of accessible formats, which includes Easy Read, BSL, audio and large print.

Coalition evidence prominently cited, but concerns remain

The Coalition are delighted that our written evidence, and the oral evidence delivered by speech and language therapist Gillian Rudd, is quoted throughout the report, including key sections on the accessibility of the parliamentary estate, the culture of accessibility, parliamentary language, and accessible formats.

However, while several recommendations align closely with the Coalition’s proposals (such as the creation of an External Accessibility Advisory Group improved accessibility audits, mandatory accessibility training and the development of explainers and co-designed resources), we are concerned that the report lacks a sufficient level of detail in several areas affecting communication accessibility.

What the Coalition welcomes

The group highlighted a number of recommendations with strong potential to improve inclusion:

• external accessibility advisory group must include organisations representing signing communities and people with communication needs

• mandatory accessibility training for House managers and senior staff

• accessibility recognised as a major strategic priority

• better identification and support of accessibility requirements, which must explicitly cover communication and signing needs

• a communications campaign to shift culture

• improvements to reasonable adjustments for MPs, including the proposed “Reasonable Adjustments Card”

• expansion of accessible public-facing information, including Easy Read and clearer explainers, and exploration of producing these formats in-house.

Key omissions: communication accessibility, culture in debates, and sign language

Despite progress, there are several issues we have highlighted in written and oral evidence that are not reflected in the report’s recommendations:

• Communication accessibility is not explicitly embedded in the definitions, training frameworks, or systems for identifying access needs.

• BSL and sign language interpretation receive little attention, leaving a substantial gap in the report’s coverage.

• No recommendation to establish a confidential, MP-owned access needs register, which the Coalition argues would prevent fragmented, repeated disclosure and ensure continuity across services.

• Limited attention to culture and behaviour in debates, including the noise levels, linguistic conventions, time limits, and speaking rules that can make parliamentary participation inaccessible for MPs who sign or use augmentative or alternative communication.

• Insufficient proposals on procedural reform, beyond addressing issues such as extra time, alternative communication modes, and accessibility adjustments embedded in Standing Orders remain unaddressed.

We also note that the Committee’s section on accessible formats emphasises disability rather than recognising that improved clarity and plain English benefit the entire public: a point raised in Coalition our evidence.

Coalition calls for next steps

To ensure meaningful progress, we are urging the Administration Committee and House authorities to incorporate the missing areas into the next phase of work. The Modernisation Committee describes its report as “the beginning of making Parliament a more accessible place to work” and calls for “a new approach to accessibility for the House of Commons”.

We agree that the report marks a significant moment, but must emphasise that its success hinges on whether communication accessibility is treated as essential, not optional.