By Dr Mustafa Mohammed

Imagine being told that you’re not welcome in your workplace or a public building because of who you are.

Listen to this article

Now imagine that this place was the heart of Britain’s democracy.

That’s what Britain’s disabled population confronted this week when Ed Balls suggested that the plans to make the Houses of Parliament accessible for disabled parliamentarians, staff and visitors are an expensive and wasteful exercise.

His comments came in the context of the endless debate over the restoration of our historic Parliament.

He suggested that while disabled access must be ensured, “you don’t need to have that in every floor” and “not every lift has to be converted unless you’re willing to pay disproportionate cost”.

A passing comment. Flippant almost. The ease with which the issue and experience of millions was so carelessly discarded was instructive.

The former Shadow Chancellor understands both public finance and the responsibilities of national institutions. That is precisely why the remark is so troubling. When someone of his standing implies that accessibility may be negotiable on cost grounds, it risks normalising the idea that inclusion is optional when costs rise.

The consequences of such a dismissive mentality are significant. Almost half of working-age disabled people have mobility issues. Huge strides forward have been made to improve the accessibility of workplaces and working practices to best support people with disabilities into and in work, but still the economic inactivity of disabled people stands at a risible 42.5 per cent - far in excess of the 13.7 per cent of non-disabled people.

The barriers to elected office for disabled people are considerable, despite the Government doing important work to support disabled candidates throughout the election process. But at the very least, disabled people should be able to expect Parliament to be accessible once they’ve successfully navigated their election.

As a wheelchair user and occasional visitor to Westminster, I have long become accustomed to the challenges of navigating the Mother of Parliaments. Its labyrinth of corridors, ageing lifts and disjointed layout are notoriously hard to navigate for the able-bodied, let alone those who require special assistance. To encounter this every day would be exhausting.

Is it any wonder that people with disabilities - 16.8 million people according to the Department of Work and Pensions - are so appallingly underrepresented in elected office in the UK? As little as 1.5 per cent of the current House of Commons are disabled, and yet a quarter of the population has a disability. It’s a similar story in the House of Lords.

As consideration is given to Parliament’s 21st Century revival, the last thing that should occur is the preservation of structural barriers that deter future disabled candidates from public service.

If certain floors remain inaccessible, or some lifts are not adapted, what does that mean in practice for MPs or peers who live with disabilities? How would they attend meetings held on upper levels? How would they access committee rooms, offices, or informal spaces where critical conversations often take place?

Would their ability to participate depend on others carrying documents, relaying discussions, or navigating barriers on their behalf? How can society expect truly inclusive laws if disabled individuals are physically constrained from participating in the rooms where those laws are drafted?

A parliamentarian cannot fully discharge their duties if their movement within Parliament is restricted. Representation cannot be meaningful if it is conditional.

Every election cycle, we hear noise about how representative parliamentarians and councillors are of wider society. Accusations of an exclusive ‘boys club’ in Number 10 are politically damaging. Ethnic diversity is rightfully celebrated.

As for people with disabilities…well, you get the idea.

Empowering and enabling people with lived experience of disabilities is essential to tackling not only their current political underrepresentation but the many everyday policy decisions that shape and all too often impede their lives.

If any building in the United Kingdom should reflect the principle of equal participation, it is this one.

Of course, the financial context is real. Politicians are understandably wary of approving multibillion-pound projects that opponents can portray as self-serving expenditure.

But accessibility must not be framed as a discretionary add-on in a debate about overengineering. Equal access is not extravagance. It is the baseline requirement of a modern democratic institution that embodies equal voice for all.

We live in an era of advanced engineering and adaptive design. Other nations have modernised historic legislative buildings without sacrificing accessibility. The issue is not technical capability; it is our political priorities.

Accessibility is not a luxury. It is the architecture of democratic legitimacy. Anything less diminishes both the building and the democracy within it.

Dr Mustafa Mohammed is chairman of Genix Healthcare and co-runs Ability2Win, an organisation that champions disability policy and political representation.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk

© LBC