Ministers have talked a lot during this crisis of deploying ‘world leading’ measures to tackle the pandemic. Ironically, the #virtualparliament is world leading and yet today they want to scrap it
Remote participation across a range of proceedings in the Chamber & Select Committees, plus remote voting, has been delivered at speed and scale. What staff at Westminster have delivered surpasses what many other legislatures have achieved so far in this crisis.
But the government’s plans now risk turning the House of Commons from a global parliamentary leader in to an international laughing stock.
Ministers want the @HouseofCommons to resume normal service albeit with new social distancing measures. MPs will no longer be able to participate remotely in Chamber proceedings or vote online in divisions.
But social distancing can’t be accommodated in the Commons voting lobbies so they can’t be used for divisions. The result will be a long, socially distanced voting queue of hundreds of MPs snaking through the Palace of Westminster
But the most serious consequence is that MPs who are shielding or who are unable, for reasons arising from the pandemic, to travel to Westminster will be unable to take part in any chamber proceedings or votes. Westminster will have 2-tier representation.
The @CommonsProcCom chair Karen Bradley is offering a pragmatic solution with amendments to provide for continued virtual participation by MPs who are ‘prevented from attending the House in person by the conditions arising from the pandemic’
The virtual @HouseofCommons is a poor substitute for the real thing. Scrutiny is different, interventions are difficult, spontaneity is lacking, But it beats being disenfranchised, which is what ministerial plans mean for some MPs.
The @CommonsLeader argues that the virtual Parliament is no longer necessary and a return to wholly physical proceedings at Westminster is the best solution as MPs will no longer have to make compromises in scrutiny and more time will be available politicshome.com/thehouse/artic…
The virtual Commons sat for only three days per week and for limited sitting times. But it could sit for longer if MPs demanded it. The @HouseofLords sat for four days in the week before the Whitsun recess and for up to 9 hours a day.
Vague assertions have been made in recent weeks about the technological and resource limitations of the system but theres no limit on the number of days or hours the system could be used although clearly more staff resources would be needed to operate for longer each day
So it’s unclear why some types of scrutiny - adjournment, backbench business and e-petition debates for example – could not be provided for. The problem seems to be political will not system constraints.
Nor is there a limit of 120 on the number of participants remotely. More could now be accommodated if desired. Unlike in the Chamber where 50 is the limit for social distancing, only 40 of which can be accommodated in seats with microphones nearby
The Commons Leader suggests the amount of time the House spends debating primary legislation will increase by two thirds, but provides no evidence for this.
How much time will be eaten up in voting queues rather than in scrutiny? Just 5 divisions – as there was on the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill on 22 Jan - could take up to 2.5 hours out of a day in future.
Is that a good use of MPs time? Will the additional time eaten up in divisions be explicitly excluded from the time set aside for scrutiny in the programme motion for bills in future? Will it inhibit MPs moving amendments to test the House?
Ministers indicate that a solution lies in pairing to reduce the time spent voting. But that’s a whips brew and means potentially hundreds of MPs will not have a chance to record their view on important legislation in the future.
The government is axing the virtual Parliament before MPs have had the chance to test online or hybrid legislative committees. Unlike in the Lords, where several virtual legislative committees have now operated as far as possible like their Grand Committee model.
Its not a perfect solution for interventions but during debate on groups of amendments a Peer can email the clerk if they wish to speak after the minister. Members are called to speak in order of request & the Minister is called to reply each time.
The government motion is poorly drafted (in contrast to the Bradley amendments) and betrays a lack of detailed thinking about the procedural consequences that arise if only 50 MPs can be accommodated in the Chamber.
There’s no mention of provisions for securing emergency debates under SO. 24 where 40 MPs are required to indicate support in the Chamber. How can sitting Fridays for Private Members Bills return, when 40 and 100 MPs are variously required to support certain PMB procedures?
The government’s proposals are also worryingly short-sighted There is no provision for the virtual parliament to be reinstated if there is a new lockdown with a 2nd wave of the virus. And it’s unclear what will happen if MPs and officials have to isolate for 14 days.
To cap it all the govt is whipping the vote. Govt backbenchers may be reluctant to rebel but this is a moment to support other colleagues in all parties across the House. The democratic right of all MPs to take part in proceedings should outweigh partisan allegiance.
