A virtual parliament was well equipped to make progress on the government’s legislative agenda

When Jacob Rees-Mogg set out his arguments for bringing parliament's virtual proceedings to a close, he claimed that "the return to physical proceedings means we can properly resume parliament’s essential constitutional function of delivering [the government's legislative agenda]".

It is true that the government had an ambitious legislative programme. Following the election, the Queen’s Speech included over 30 bills implementing manifesto commitments. Among these were eight relating to the UK’s exit from the EU, of which seven remain in progress and which the government would ideally like to pass before the end of the transition period on 31 December.

Speaking to the Commons Procedure Committee, Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House of Commons, stated that “about seven weeks” of the government’s legislative programme had been lost during the lockdown. However, his argument that junking virtual proceedings was essential if progress was to be made is not convincing. 

Responding to the coronavirus pandemic has inevitably taken up parliamentary time

When Rees-Mogg was speaking it was approximately seven sitting weeks since the pandemic had begun to affect parliamentary business. In late March, the government was forced to shelve its original plans to make way for the Coronavirus Bill, which (with cross-party co-operation) was passed by both Houses in just three days. Because of the difficulty of social distancing within the Palace of Westminster, parliament rose three sitting days early for Easter, on 25 March, rather than 31 March.

It seems likely that the need for other coronavirus-related legislation – secondary and primary (including the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Bill) – will continue to squeeze the time available for other government legislation, although the government has been happy to use accelerated scrutiny procedures to pass coronavirus measures.

But it is an exaggeration to claim that no progress has been made with the legislative programme during the last seven weeks. Since the hybrid proceedings were begun, seven bills have had second reading in the Commons and three in the Lords, and one – the Agriculture Bill – had its report stage and third reading.

It remains unclear why public bill committees did not continue during the ‘lost’ weeks

Despite probing by Karen Bradley, chair of the Commons Procedure Committee, it remains unclear why the government did not carry on with public bill committees (in which MPs conduct line-by-line scrutiny of bills) during the seven-week period Rees-Mogg describes as ‘lost’. He initially blamed the opposition for preventing committees taking place by not putting forward the names of MPs to sit on the committees to the Committee of Selection. Later, however, he seemed to backtrack on this explanation. Another possible explanation is that at the start of the pandemic there was simply insufficient bandwidth in government to deal with legislating as usual.

The absence of public bill committees is curious. Even with social distancing requirements in place there were enough MPs prepared to participate, and sufficient spacious committee rooms, to keep two bills in committee each week. Work was also underway to hold hybrid public committee sittings: successful trials had been undertaken with the participation of government whips, and the necessary procedural changes had been drafted. This approach was then repudiated by the government as it changed its policy and began to insist, based on the recovery strategy announced by the prime minister on 10 May, that MPs should return to Westminster.

Even if, as the Leader of the House seemed to suggest to the Procedure Committee earlier this week, there were insufficient facilities for all the bill committees that the government wanted to start after the Easter recess, it remains unclear why the government did not take up the facilities that were available.

Since the Commons and Lords returned from the Whitsun recess the government has become keen to schedule public bill committees. Four are sitting this week, and are scrutinising the Finance, Domestic Abuse, Medicines and Medical Devices, and Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) bills. This is being done by MPs observing social distancing, in large committee rooms – as has always been possible.

The government has cut back parliamentary recesses to allow more time to pass legislation

The government is clearly concerned about the time it has available to pass legislation by the end of the session. It has told MPs that parliament will rise for a summer recess lasting just a month on 30 July (instead of the usual six or seven weeks) and that there will be no conference recess at all (normally three weeks). This means the House will sit for an unbroken stretch from 1 September to 3 November.

The priority up to the end of 2020 will presumably be to pass the seven remaining Brexit bills, along with any other coronavirus legislation required. But the government will also want to show it is making progress with implementing its other manifesto commitments, such as ‘levelling up’. Whatever progress Brexit negotiations make, the government won’t want to leave voters, particularly the new voters it acquired at the last election, with the impression it has done little other than deal with Brexit and coronavirus.

It seems likely that the government will extend the session that began after the election in 2019 to the spring of 2021, in order to resume the rhythm of year-long sessions beginning with a Queen’s Speech in May. The proposed calendar of sitting Fridays, which the House has been periodically deferring, suggests that the current session will be continued until at least March next year. If it extends into the spring, the government will have four or five months longer than the usual parliamentary year to pass non-Brexit legislation. Hopefully, by early next year, the risks associated with MPs crowding into the Commons to vote will have reduced. Abandoning fully functional remote voting arrangements now, in favour of less satisfactory ones, for the sake of just a few more sitting days, is not justified – no matter how busy the legislative agenda.