Abandoning our virtual Parliament could damage our democracy

Before Easter, as social distancing measures were introduced in workplaces across the country, Parliament decided that it too needed to find ways of conducting its business online. A period of frenetic preparations enabled select committees to conduct virtual hearings and – when Parliament returned from recess – allowed some MPs to participate in chamber proceedings from their constituencies.

While the earliest virtual sittings were restricted to oral questions and statements, the range of activity that has been conducted at least partially online has been growing. This week a system for remote voting was successfully introduced, clearing the way for the Commons to make decisions on contentious legislation.

Some MPs have complained about the new processes. They are more stilted than normal parliamentary proceedings, requiring MPs to flag in advance if they wish to speak and not allowing for ad hoc interventions. Backbenchers have complained that the front benches have prioritised their own business rather than opportunities for backbenchers to propose subjects for debate. And the whips are apparently worried about being unable to ensure their members vote the right way – a potential hazard demonstrated by Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, accidentally supporting the addition of a rebel new clause to the Agriculture Bill.

The principle underpinning all these innovations has been ‘equality of participation’ – that the introduction of new working methods should not prevent any MP from fufilling their democratic role and representing their constituents. This was the thinking behind the Commons ‘hybrid’ model of chamber sittings – which enabled up to 50 MPs to participate from the Commons Chamber, with up to 120 more joining in virtually. It was also the reason why it was seen as so important to introduce remote voting – so that MPs could all exercise their votes individually (and not have to rely on informal agreements between the parties to avoid votes or have their whips cast votes on their behalf).

If virtual proceedings are discontinued, some MPs won’t be able to participate

The announcement on Tuesday by the Leader of the House, Jacob Rees Mogg, that the government intends to discontinue virtual proceedings from June (subject to a vote of the House), represents a sharp departure from the principle of equality of participation. If the Commons reverts to only conducting its business in-person, MPs who are vulnerable (including 24 MPs who are 70 plus), those who are shielding an at-risk member of their household, and any for whom the journey to Westminster will be too difficult in the current circumstances, will be excluded from participating.

The government’s argument is that the Commons “cannot be as effective in carrying out its constitutional duties without Members being present”. It seems that one of the most important factors in the government’s calculations is that the Commons’ ability “to pass the volume of legislation required by the government” is restricted by the current arrangements. But there would be a real question about the democratic legitimacy of legislation passed in circumstances where some democratically elected MPs are prevented from participating in debate and scrutiny.

The Leader has suggested that MPs who do not travel to Westminster will be ‘paired’ in any votes that take place – matched with an absent MP of an opposing party so that the fact that neither votes cancels out in the result. But this reflects a very narrow perspective on the role of an MP. As well as being excluded from voting, MPs unable to attend in person will be prevented from participating in debates, asking oral questions and questioning ministers after they make statements. This amounts to a serious curtailment of their role and their ability to represent their constituents.

Meanwhile, unless the government is going to disapply social distancing rules in the Commons chamber (which seems unlikely) only 50 MPs will be able to participate in proceedings in the chamber at any time. If hundreds of MPs are compelled to travel to Westminster to do their jobs, who will decide which 50 get to be in the chamber for the most high-profile pieces of business? If the answer is ‘the whips’ that would put a lot of power in their hands. If it is ‘first come first served’ then social distancing may suffer.

Our virtual Parliament is imperfect but inclusive

Virtual parliamentary proceedings may be imperfect but at least they are inclusive. If the government wants MPs to set an example to the nation during this crisis, surely the example they should set is that it is possible to adapt our ways of life and ways of working to allow for social distancing and to ‘control the virus’. The prime minister has told the public that they should work at home if they can – in recent weeks the public has seen MPs demonstrating that they can participate in debates, scrutiny and now votes from home.

Dragging MPs back to Westminster prematurely would instead signal that the government thinks we should revert to our old ways of doing things as soon as possible, even if that puts lives at risk.

Listen to our interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg on the virtual parliament