When the Labour government came to power and needed to deliver on its manifesto promise to ‘deepen our democracy by reforming Parliament’, it reached for a familiar tool. On 25 July 2024, MPs voted to establish the new, improved House of Commons Modernisation Committee. The remit, laid down in a standing order, was broad: to ‘…consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices; and to make recommendations thereon’.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve been here before. The original Modernisation Committee was a creation of the first Blair government in 1997. It was quietly allowed to expire after the coalition came to power in 2010, having acquired a reputation for moving at a stately pace and being a little too cosy with the executive. That earlier committee, however, did contribute some significant reforms: it helped create Westminster Hall as a parallel debating chamber, pushed through changes to sitting hours, and nudged select committees in a more independently-minded direction. Despite this, when I entered in 2015, the House’s eccentricities still fell short of anything most people would regard as “modern”.
This new iteration is, on paper, a serious piece of machinery. It’s larger than most select committees, with 14 members: nine Labour, three Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats; it met formally with representatives from smaller parties in late 2024, but does not appear to have done so since. There’s been a rotating cast, with the committee’s membership dictated by reshuffles and resignations. It’s chaired by the Leader of the House: first Lucy Powell and now Sir Alan Campbell. Unlike most select committees whose members are elected within their parties, this one is largely appointed by the government whips. All of which, critics say, tells you something about how “modern” the Modernisation Committee could ever be.
Lucy Powell told MPs that the committee would initially look at four topics: MPs’ outside employment (aka banning second jobs), holding the government to account, making Parliament accessible, and taking forward recommendations on the Independent Complaints and Grievance Service. But, nearly two years on from its rebirth, what has the committee actually achieved?
The internal inquiry
This revival was supposed to learn from history. It was meant to be more independent, more ambitious and more willing to challenge the status quo than its Blair-era forebear. In October 2024, the committee’s first major act was to launch an inquiry into itself. To be fair, there is some logic to this. It wanted to define its own role, set priorities, and work out how it would relate to existing committees operating in much the same space, notably the Procedure Committee and the Committee on Standards. The inquiry took evidence from academics, former clerks and assorted constitutional experts, all of whom said broadly the same thing: if this committee is going to justify its existence, it needs to be ambitious, strategic and not just a rubber stamp for whatever the government fancies. As of mid‑2026, that inquiry remains officially open, with the committee’s somewhat flexible remit more rooted in aspiration than reality.
The access inquiry
In March 2025 it launched what has so far been its only completed inquiry: ‘Access to the House of Commons and its Procedures’. It looked at how easy it is for MPs, staff, journalists and, crucially, the public, to navigate Parliament’s physical and procedural maze. It examined everything from disabled access and visitor routes to the layout of the order paper and the format of digital services. It even brushed up against the sprawling, eternally-delayed Restoration and Renewal programme, asking how any future building works might help make the place less of a labyrinth and more of a legislature. But that’s not coming to fruition anytime soon.
In December 2025, the committee produced its report. It recommended a series of improvements, including calls for clearer signage, better information for visitors, more accessible seating and facilities and improvements to the way business is presented online. It also suggested that Parliament’s arcane language could be made more comprehensible to those who don’t speak fluent Erskine May. The House authorities responded in March this year, with a formal document agreeing with much of the report, promising to ‘consider’ recommendations and committing to work with the committee on implementation.
The debates inquiry
The Modernisation Committee’s most recent venture is an inquiry opened in March 2026 into ‘Backbench Business Committee and Petitions Committee Debates’. This one has the potential to be more interesting. These procedures are two of the more welcome innovations of recent years, giving MPs and the public a route to secure debates on topics that might not otherwise trouble the government’s agenda. The Modernisation Committee is now asking whether those debates are working as intended, whether they’re scheduled sensibly and if the link between public petitions and parliamentary time is as strong as it should be. So far, the committee has heard evidence from academics and experts, and has scheduled further sessions for later this month.
Aside from these three formal inquiries, the committee has also held ad hoc discussions on matters including hybrid meetings of select committees, parental leave for committee chairs and the work of the Independent Expert Panel.
The verdict and the future
Stepping back to look at the committee’s work since its creation in 2024, a pattern emerges. Remember the four initial workstreams outlined by Lucy Powell? The inquiry into MPs’ second jobs has been taken on by the Committee on Standards, which appears not to have held an evidence session since July last year; ‘holding the government to account’ will be covered partially by the ‘debates’ inquiry, which only started in March; and the ICGS recommendations were agreed by the House in June 2025. Only the ‘access’ inquiry has so far produced a substantive report, and even that has generated more polite correspondence than concrete change. For a body tasked with modernising the House of Commons, the pace has been, shall we say, unhurried.
In the committee’s defence, procedural reform is notoriously complex and often means unpicking decades (or centuries) of custom and practice. The Commons is a stubborn institution, and even minor changes can provoke fierce resistance from those who see every standing order as a sacred text. But there is a difference between being careful and being glacial, and a lack of adequate ambition altogether. The new Modernisation Committee was created in a moment of political optimism, with a government that had explicitly promised to clean up politics and make Parliament work better. It had the advantage of historical hindsight: we know what the previous Modernisation Committee did, what worked, and what didn’t. And that being too close to the government can make a committee look like a delivery vehicle for the executive rather than a champion of the House.
Yet the new committee has, so far, largely repeated the old pattern. It’s chaired by a senior government figure and populated mainly by MPs chosen by the whips. Its inquiries have been cautious and technocratic. And overall, it’s been slow. This might be modernisation, but ironically it risks being out-of-date by the time it’s implemented.
What might the committee do instead? It could look seriously at the legislative process, asking why so much law‑making still happens in rushed committee rooms with minimal public visibility. It could examine the use of secondary legislation and statutory instruments, which have become a convenient way for governments to avoid detailed scrutiny. It could revisit the balance of power between the government and the House in scheduling business. It could explore how digital tools might be used not just to stream debates, but to make them intelligible and interactive for citizens who do not have a PhD in parliamentary procedure.
It could, in short, behave like a committee that believes its own title. This is no criticism of its individual members, many of whom I know personally to be thoughtful and serious parliamentarians. The problem is the prevailing culture, which regards procedural change with suspicion and believes it should be discussed sparingly, and preferably without disturbing anyone too much. On the plus side, this iteration of the committee is still relatively young. It has time to sharpen its focus, to pick a few big fights and to show it can do more than tidy up signage and tweak debate schedules. It could, if it chose, become the place where serious proposals for rebalancing power are pushed forward. But that would require a major shift in attitude from many people and institutions not known for embracing change or relinquishing control.
Until that happens, the verdict has to be, putting it kindly, ‘could do better’. The House of Commons may yet be modernised. But if it is, current evidence suggests it will happen despite the well-meaning work of the new Modernisation Committee, not because of it.
Peter Heaton-Jones.
Peter Heaton-Jones was MP for North Devon 2015-2019. He was parliamentary private secretary in two government departments and served on several select and legislation committees. He now works in public affairs and the media.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.