Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave

We now come to the motions relating to Select Committee Chairs, period of Leave; Select Committee participation; the Committee of Privileges report; and Standing Orders, machinery of government changes, which will be debated together. There is a small error on the printed Order Paper in the motion on Standing Orders, machinery of government changes. Under section B: Related Provisions, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (ii), the Committee names should be swapped around. A corrected version of the motion is available from the Vote Office and the online version of the Order Paper has been corrected.

I beg to move, That:— (1) A select committee chair who has arranged for a proxy vote under the provisions of Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) may take a period of leave. (2) The period of leave must be continuous and must last for a minimum of one month and can last up to a maximum of seven months, with the possibility of extension, subject to the approval of the Chair of the Liaison Committee, if the proxy vote arrangements are extended. (3) The formal leave period for a chair will begin only after the committee has appointed a replacement for the chair, to be known as the acting chair. (4) There must be at least five sitting days’ notice given of the intention to agree the appointment, or the extension, of an acting chair (not including the day on which the notice is circulated, but including the day on which the appointment or extension is to be discussed) and such notice must be in writing. (5) The acting chair must be a member of the committee and where the chair of a committee has been elected by the whole House, the committee should appoint an acting chair who comes from the same party as the chair unless the committee decides there are compelling reasons to do otherwise. (6) In the case of the committees specified in Standing Order No. 122B(8)(f), the acting chair must come from the official Opposition party, unless no member from that party is available or willing to act in that capacity, in which case they must come from another opposition party. (7) In the case of an appointment of an acting chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the provisions of Standing Orders Nos 122D(1)(c) and 152J(6) shall apply to that appointment. (8) The acting chair may exercise all the powers of the chair, including any powers already delegated to the chair by the committee. (9) The acting chair shall be a member of the Liaison Committee during the period of the chair’s leave, in place of the chair. (10) The chair of the committee shall resume that function either at the end of the period of leave or after giving at least five sitting days’ notice of their intention to return from a specified date. (11) The leave or return of a chair and the appointment, or the extension, of an acting chair, and their temporary membership of the Liaison Committee, shall be reported to the House. (12) In relation to Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairs of select committees): (a) the acting chair may be a previous chair of the committee even if they have reached the term limit for chairs of select committees; (b) time spent as an acting chair does not count towards the term limits for chairs of select committees; and (c) any period of leave taken by the chair counts towards the term limits for chairs of select committees. (13) In the case of a committee to which Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs) applies, the committee may remove an acting chair at any point, provided that it has first agreed a motion of no confidence in that chair in accordance with the conditions set out in paragraphs (3) and (4) of Standing Order No. 122C (Resignation or removal of chairs of select committees) and any such resolution shall be reported to the House. (14) If the committee has resolved it has no confidence in an acting chair, it may choose another member to be the acting chair in accordance with paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) of this order. (15) If the committee is one which is specified in the resolution of the House of 19 March 2013 (as amended) relating to positions for which additional salaries are payable, the chair will continue to be paid the salary of a select committee chair during the period of leave and the acting chair, if they are a Member of the House of Commons, will be paid the salary of a select committee chair pro rata for the period during which they stand in for the chair. (16) The Liaison Committee may issue guidance about the operation of this Standing Order. (17) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions: Select Committees (Participation)— That with effect from 30 November 2026:— (1) Select committee members may in the circumstances set out in paragraph 2 below participate in any select committee proceedings through electronic means of communication in accordance with guidance to be determined and published by the Liaison Committee, which must take into account the need for cyber security. (2) The circumstances in which this Standing Order applies are: (a) when access to the estate is significantly limited or prevented entirely, or (b) when reasonable adjustments need to be made for an individual committee member on the grounds of health and wellbeing, following the conclusion of an assessment process as set out in the Liaison Committee guidance. (3) A Member participating through electronic means in accordance with this Standing Order shall count towards the quorum of the Committee. (4) The provisions of this Standing Order apply to meetings held under the provisions of Standing Order No. 137A (Select committees: power to work with other committees). (5) This Standing Order applies to all select committees appointed under Public Business Standing Orders, the Modernisation Committee, and such other select committees as the House directs. (6) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament. Privileges— That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges First Report of Session 2026–27, Matter referred on 4 September 2025: Actions of the Charity Commission (HC 315), and endorses its conclusions and recommendations. Standing Orders Etc. (Machinery of Government Changes)— That the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders: A: Select Committees Related to Government Departments (1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows— (i) leave out items 1, 3, 14 and 19; (ii) insert, in the appropriate place, the following items: “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” “Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” 11 “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” “Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” 11 “Science and Technology” “Government Office for Science” 11 “Women and Equalities” “Office for Equality and Opportunity” 11 B: Related Provisions (2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament, including for the purposes of calculating any period under Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairs of select committees)— (i) relating to the Business and Trade Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee; (ii) relating to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee; and (iii) relating to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Science and Technology Committee. C: Liaison Committee (3) That the Resolution of the House of 4 December 2024 (Liaison Committee: Membership), be amended, in paragraph (2)— (i) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (ii) by leaving out “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; (iii) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”. (4) That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended, in paragraph (6), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”. D. European Committees (5) That the Table in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended in respect of European Committee C, by leaving out: (a) “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (b) “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; and (c) “Science, Innovation and Technology”. E. Scrutiny of orders and draft orders (6) That Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (7) That Standing Order No. 141 (Scrutiny of regulatory and legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; and (8) That Standing Order No. 142 (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”. F. Planning: national policy statements (9) That Standing Order No. 152H (Planning: national policy statements) be amended in paragraph (2)(a) as follows— (a) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (b) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”.

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.

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.

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.

I support the motions in the name of the Leader of the House and thank him for his opening remarks. The motion on privileges asks this House to agree with the findings in the report by the Committee of Privileges, of which I am the Chair, relating to the Charity Commission taking legal action to prevent the laying of two reports before Parliament by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Before I go further, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, first brought this matter to the House’s attention and moved the motion to refer it to my Committee just over a year ago, on 4 September 2025. Our report deals with a rather technical but very important matter that concerns us all: parliamentary privilege. We must not forget that the case arose from serious complaints and allegations made against a number of charities, including the alleged concealment of child sexual abuse. The PCA reported on those complaints and made recommendations to the Charity Commission. Having concluded that the injustice had not been remedied and was not likely to be remedied, she decided to lay reports before Parliament, as was her right under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. It was not the role of my Committee to reach a judgment on the substance of the cases, and so we did not do so. Our role was to consider matters of parliamentary privilege and, in this case, the obstruction of the provision of information to Members. Before touching on the details of the case, I should acknowledge at the outset that, as the Leader of the House said, the commission has already accepted and acted on one of our recommendations. On 14 July—the day that we published our report—the chair of the Charity Commission, on behalf of the board, wrote to Mr Speaker, the Chair of PACAC and me, as Chair of the Privileges Committee, with an unreserved apology. The chief executive officer, Mr Holdsworth, apologised in writing to Mr Speaker. The letter to me has been published on the Committee’s website. I welcome the fact that the commission has finally acknowledged its error, albeit at a regrettably late stage. I hope it will not try Members’ patience if I remind them of the findings and significance of the report. Although it has seemingly technical issues at its heart, it is about the flow of information to this House and is therefore of the greatest importance to the House—to each and every one of us—and its ability to function. The Charity Commission interfered with the flow of information when it sought to prevent the PCA from laying reports before Parliament using the powers given to her in legislation. To make matters worse, the commission refused for a very long time to accept that this was a privilege matter and persisted in its efforts to prevent publication. That was despite repeated written advice, including from Speaker’s Counsel, that its legal action was improper interference with the House’s right to be informed, and could not be considered by the courts as it would have entailed impeaching and questioning proceedings in Parliament, contrary to article IX of the Bill of Rights. That is deeply regrettable, especially given that the reports related to the commission’s failure, as the PCA saw it, to implement properly the recommendations arising from its handling of the very serious complaints to which I referred. At the same time as agreeing to refer the matter to my Committee, this House ordered that the PCA’s reports be laid. That resolved the immediate issue: the interference with the provision of information to the House, as a result of which the courts ruled that the case was academic and the legal merits were unarguable. It remained for my Committee, however, to consider whether the behaviour of the commission was a contempt of Parliament and to come to a view on whether reports laid under section 10(3) of the 1967 Act are indeed proceedings in Parliament, as Speaker’s Counsel had advised. In conducting our inquiry on behalf of this House, we took evidence from Speaker’s Counsel, the PCA herself and three representatives of the commission: its then interim chair, Mark Simms; its CEO, David Holdsworth; and its head of litigation, Felix Rechtman. Although we were grateful to all the witnesses for giving evidence, our report was highly critical of Mr Holdsworth, in particular, especially for repeatedly insisting, both in his oral evidence and elsewhere in correspondence, that it was never the commission’s intention that Parliament should not see the information in the reports. The Committee could not see how that claim could be squared with the commission’s pre-action letter, which specifically sought to quash the decision to provide Parliament with that information. In the light of that, we recommended that Mr Holdsworth and the board of the commission should apologise to the House. As I said, and as the Leader of the House confirmed, those apologies have now been made. The inquiry sought to establish something that has never been explicitly considered by the courts, not even in this case, since the judge ruled that the legal merits were unarguable: namely, whether reports to be laid under section 10(3) of the 1967 Act are in fact proceedings in Parliament. That is crucial to the rights of Parliament, since article IX of the Bill of Rights confers on proceedings in Parliament protection from being “impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.” That is one of our most foundational constitutional principles. If such a report is a proceeding in Parliament, any attempt to obstruct its laying could be a contempt of Parliament. The Committee found that such reports were intimately connected to the House and were therefore proceedings in Parliament, and so covered by article IX. It consequently found that any attempt to prevent the laying of a paper before one or both Houses was capable of being a contempt, and that in this particular case the commission had clearly committed such a contempt. It is deeply regrettable that the Committee had to consider this case at all. I very much hope that the Charity Commission, and indeed other public bodies, learn the lessons so that we avoid a repeat of these unfortunate events. I thank the other members of the Privileges Committee, the Clerks—especially the Clerk of the Journals, who is soon to be Clerk of the House—and Speaker’s Counsel for helping us to navigate what was at times an incredibly difficult subject procedurally. I hope that my speech and that of the Leader of the House have demonstrated to all of us, however, that it was also one of great importance to the proper functioning of the House of Commons. I hope that Members will agree to the motion.

I rise to speak to the motion on substituting Select Committee members if a Chair takes leave and the motion on virtual participation. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), for their work. I also thank the Clerks who did amazing work to help us navigate these issues. On virtual participation, there was a clear view among Chairs that there is real benefit to being in the room when Select Committees make decisions and carry out our work, because we need to have conversations both privately and in public. However, we are very aware that, in ordinary workplaces, reasonable adjustments should be made for serious health issues or disability, so we need to be in a more modern space. There was some serious discussion—although, there was no issue with what has been decided—that a person who is very unwell or on maternity leave should have the right to take that leave and not be present, and they should not be criticised for that. This change would allow people not to attend, even if they have a proxy vote, and no approbation should be laid upon them for that. We fought hard for sick leave and maternity leave, and Members should also enjoy those rights. There should be no pressure because people can participate virtually. The other point about virtual participation is that, under the previous Standing Orders, if we were to experience an issue such as the ash cloud or covid again, there would be no activity in this place. I can tell those who were not here during covid that, in the four or five weeks after Easter, when we were locked down, the House rapidly ensured that virtual participation could take place across the House and in Committees, but it required a change in the Standing Orders. This motion puts the matter on a proper footing. It is right to modernise, and that does not diminish the importance of sharing opinions in person. There are also some important safeguards in the measures to ensure that anyone participating virtually is doing so in an appropriate place—for example, not from a car or a train, and not with someone else in the room. It is right that we explicitly say that, because the work of Select Committees is important and they are privileged proceedings of the House. The motion allowing Chairs to be replaced more officially when they are on sick leave or on maternity or parental leave is really important. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), who pioneered the approach. A few others have done so over the years, but she really stepped up and took on the role of acting Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee and did some amazing work in that job without all the normal, formal procedures that the motion will put in place. The motion sets the tone by picking up some of the best practices of proxy voting, such as having a review period so that it cannot go on forever. Because Chairs are ultimately elected on a party political basis, there needs to be some thought about that, but it does allow flexibility. If, for example, a member of the Committee regularly steps into the Chair and the rest of the Committee decides that that person might be the more appropriate person to do that, it allows for wriggle room to allow that relevant and proper person to be the Chair even if they are a member of another party. That is important, and perhaps that has been thrown up more in this Parliament than in some others because of the large majority on the Government side, meaning that most Select Committees have only two Members from the other two main parties. The Modernisation Committee has done a sterling job of navigating both these issues to ensure that we modernise to allow us all to participate as we properly should while retaining the integrity of the House and the integrity of Select Committees.

On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward these motions. I never had any doubt that he would be a radical and reforming Leader of the House, and the motions are evidence of that radical reforming nature that he has always had in him, which I am pleased to see. The Procedure Committee has corresponded frequently with the Modernisation Committee. On 4 March my Committee expressed—the Leader of the House’s Committee published this—its wholehearted support for the acting Select Committee Chair role, and on 25 March we supported the motions for virtual participation. The motions reflect the nature of us being a modern and welcoming workplace where MPs’ participation is supported, regardless of our health status—or, perhaps, parental leave—as such things, which can happen to any one of us, should not bar us from participating and representing our constituents’ views in this place. The measures come from a line of reforms, including proxy voting, which ensure that we are that radical and reforming Parliament that will be welcoming to anyone, regardless of their family set-up. My view is that the priority will always be for members to attend Committees in person. As a Committee Chair, I can speak to how much easier it is to chair a meeting when members are in the room rather than all on screens. Does the Leader of the House foresee us having a thorough and timely review of these schemes in time to assess whether they could be made permanent and whether reforms may need to be made to them at that stage? I welcome the motions and hope that the House will choose to support them.

I thank the Leader of the House for his speech. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) that he is radical, forward-thinking and progressive, and we thank him for that. The Leader of the House will know that I served on the Modernisation Committee for a very short period of time. The strangest part of that experience was coming face to face with my predecessor as the Member for Harlow when he gave evidence to the Committee. His evidence to the Committee was really important, and that is one reason why I feel it is so important that I stand up and ensure that his voice is heard here. I welcome the Leader of the House’s words on the changes to be made to Select Committees. We all recognise the important role of Select Committees in the running of this place. I think of my short time on the Education Committee—my time on Select Committees always seems to be short—and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is in her place, for the work she did in securing a Government apology for the victims of the false adoption scandal. Select Committees can make a huge difference to what happens in this place and beyond. However, I recognise the need for balance. It is important that we make Select Committees accessible—as the Member of Parliament for Harlow, I take accessibility seriously on behalf of my predecessor—but I also recognise the importance of in-person scrutiny. I have sat in a number of virtual meetings, including virtual council meetings during covid, and I do not think that they are necessarily as effective, particularly when huge numbers of people join them online. I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) about the importance of having strict rules on virtual participation. We do not want to have our dog or cat appear on the screen during Select Committee meetings. It can happen to any of us, but it is not necessarily what we want when scrutinising somebody from an outside body who very much needs that scrutiny. I also echo my hon. Friend’s comments about maternity rights and sick pay. It is really important that we support everybody in the House to have those. Finally, I think that the Leader of the House has got the balance absolutely right in this case, and I very much support what he has said.

May I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate? I will briefly respond to them. I am eternally grateful to the Chair of the Privileges Committee, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and very much agree with his remarks, including about the timeliness of any response from the Charity Commission and the significance of that issue. I will point out the importance—if I need to do so—of his Committee and its findings in that instance, because it had the desired effect, and I am grateful for that. I hope that lessons have been learned not just by the Charity Commission but by anyone who may feel tempted to go down that misguided route. Let me turn to the comments of the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I am grateful to her Committee and to her for her work on that Committee as well as more widely. I absolutely agree with her about the importance of protecting Members’ rights. The measures proposed today are about enhancing those rights. As she said, it is about modernising and maintaining integrity. I am pleased if the House thinks that we have got that balance right. I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith)—and her Committee. Our Committees work closely together and she shares my radical instinct on these matters—I just point that out in case this goes horribly wrong, but I am sure that it will not. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise that member participation should be in person and that the motions are time-limited. She asked whether there will be a review. I have a feeling, but it is no more than that. I obviously hope that these changes will be successful and that when the time comes the House will want to carry them forward. In that case, it would be right for us to review them before that. Finally, I turn to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who I thought was not going to mention Harlow, but he managed to get there in the end. He may have spent only a short time on Committees, and indeed only a relatively short time in the House compared to some of us, but he has been extraordinarily quick in picking up many of the best elements of working in this place. Central to that—he knows my view—is the importance of Select Committee work. I hope that hon. Members will support the motions. I commend them to the House. Question put and agreed to. Select Committees: Virtual Participation by Members Ordered, That with effect from 30 November 2026:— (1) Select committee members may in the circumstances set out in paragraph 2 below participate in any select committee proceedings through electronic means of communication in accordance with guidance to be determined and published by the Liaison Committee, which must take into account the need for cyber security. (2) The circumstances in which this Standing Order applies are: (a) when access to the estate is significantly limited or prevented entirely, or (b) when reasonable adjustments need to be made for an individual committee member on the grounds of health and wellbeing, following the conclusion of an assessment process as set out in the Liaison Committee guidance. (3) A Member participating through electronic means in accordance with this Standing Order shall count towards the quorum of the Committee. (4) The provisions of this Standing Order apply to meetings held under the provisions of Standing Order No. 137A (Select committees: power to work with other committees). (5) This Standing Order applies to all select committees appointed under Public Business Standing Orders, the Modernisation Committee, and such other select committees as the House directs. (6) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.—(Sir Alan Campbell.) Privileges Committee Report: Charity Commission Actions Ordered, That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges First Report of Session 2026-27, Matter referred on 4 September 2025: Actions of the Charity Commission (HC 315), and endorses its conclusions and recommendations.—(Sir Alan Campbell.) Select Committees: Machinery of Government Changes Ordered, That the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders: A: Select Committees Related to Government Departments (1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows— (i) leave out items 1, 3, 14 and 19; (ii) insert, in the appropriate place, the following items: “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” “Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” 11 “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” “Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” 11 “Science and Technology” “Government Office for Science” 11 “Women and Equalities” “Office for Equality and Opportunity” 11 B: Related Provisions (2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament, including for the purposes of calculating any period under Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairs of select committees)— (i) relating to the Business and Trade Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee; (ii) relating to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee; and (iii) relating to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Science and Technology Committee. C: Liaison Committee (3) That the Resolution of the House of 4 December 2024 (Liaison Committee: Membership), be amended, in paragraph (2)— (i) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (ii) by leaving out “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; (iii) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”. (4) That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended, in paragraph (6), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”. D. European Committees (5) That the Table in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended in respect of European Committee C, by leaving out: (a) “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (b) “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; and (c) “Science, Innovation and Technology”. E. Scrutiny of orders and draft orders (6) That Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (7) That Standing Order No. 141 (Scrutiny of regulatory and legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; and (8) That Standing Order No. 142 (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”. F. Planning: national policy statements (9) That Standing Order No. 152H (Planning: national policy statements) be amended in paragraph (2)(a) as follows— (a) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; (b) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)