Same Building, Different Houses: How Environment, Practices and Expectations Shape Disability Inclusion of MPs and Peers

Many observed that the House of Lords appears to be more inclusive of disabled parliamentarians that the House of Commons (Kolpinskaya 2022), if only judging by their better descriptive representation among peers (around 11 per cent (Purvis 2014)) than among Members (under two per cent (DPC 2024)). This difference is attributed to a greater frequency of age-related disabilities among the former, considering their relatively advanced age of entry and, at present, the absence of a mandatory retirement age (Crewe 2005). These conditions are relatively common and likely to affect peers as they age, and comparatively better disability inclusion is normatively and practically needed. This resonates with the argument that better descriptive representation can shape institutional environments for under-represented groups (Childs 2016; Mackay 2008), whereby it is the greater number/proportion of disabled peers that is a primary driver of adoption of accessibility practices. However, this thesis is also somewhat reductive, as it focuses largely on the composition of the institution – rather than a more holistic understanding of how the institution is organised, resourced, and recruited. This paper aims to integrate these two – representation- and institution-focused – approaches to explore the relationships between disability inclusion of peers and Members and structural set-up of the two Houses (e.g., available resources and spaces), their governance and party dynamics, and modes of legislative recruitment. The analysis draws upon the document and interview data collected during the Parliamentary Academic Fellowship in 2022-2024. It shows how institutional structures and factors shape the environments of both Houses making them materially different. This feeds into differences in their political culture and levels of collegiality making it challenging to develop Parliament-wide solutions to improve accessibility of physical but especially procedural environments for parliamentarians.