House Business during the Pandemic

McCartney questions Carmichael about the removal of screens in the Lobbies before they returned last week, suggesting it may be due to the absence of TV cameras.

Moran shares her constituents' concerns about the risk posed by attending in person and describes the decision as utterly irresponsible, forcing them to choose between their health and ability to do their jobs.

Gullis asks Carmichael if he recognises that work within the House is important for scrutinising Government actions and exchanging words. He suggests being physically present helps in this regard.

Hobhouse questions whether it should be advised to wear face masks inside to avoid spreading the virus, highlighting its effectiveness in reducing transmission risk.

Asked Alistair Carmichael whether all those who were shielding during the vote last week should have been able to participate, suggesting another vote might be necessary.

Argued that ending virtual proceedings without a virtual decision was imprudent, criticised lack of consultation with other parties. Pled for the current Leader of the House to change his mind and do his duty.

Announced a two-hour time limit on debate, including five-minute limits on Back-Bench speeches which may be reduced later.

Acknowledged concerns about return to physical proceedings but argued that the hybrid system was sub-optimal and slowed legislative progress, emphasised need for MPs to lead by example during challenging times.

Asked Jacob Rees-Mogg whether not allowing shielding MPs to participate fully is disenfranchising them, calling it cruel and unnecessary.

Questioned if the hybrid system caused Parliament to fail in its duty to constituents, asking for examples where this occurred.

Questions Jacob Rees-Mogg's preference for queuing and traditional methods. Challenges Rees-Mogg on the logic behind swift voting mechanisms and references historical political figures to critique the current approach.

Suggests that time could be better spent focusing on more pressing issues rather than debating the operations of Parliament. Expresses concern about the relevance and efficiency of the debate.

Contends that representatives from areas where physical presence is not possible due to safety or health concerns should be allowed to participate and vote virtually.

Supports the notion that physical presence in Parliament is crucial for effective legislative work, drawing parallels with the necessity of students being physically present at school for a proper education.

Acknowledges the inadequacy of hybrid proceedings but argues that it is necessary in the current circumstances. Questions whether the refusal to use hybrid methods for legislative stages was a matter of choice rather than necessity.

Challenges Rees-Mogg on the fairness and practicality of allowing virtual participation only in specific cases like shielding. Suggests that a technological solution could ensure fair voting without compromising physical presence.

Critiques the inefficiency of current voting procedures, suggesting electronic voting to save time and improve efficiency. She mentions her frustration with being misgendered by BBC Parliament.

Questions the timing of the Prime Minister's statement, suggesting it should have been made to Parliament before his televised address. He also raises concerns about the unequal treatment of Members who are shielding or caring for vulnerable family members.

Challenges Rees-Mogg's caricature of those concerned about MP exclusion due to shielding, criticising his stance as ungenerous and misleading.

Raises the issue that Members who are shielding cannot participate in emergency debates physically. He questions why they should be excluded from participating.

Expresses frustration over health risks involved with physical presence during a pandemic, arguing that public health concerns outweigh the importance of parliamentary procedures.

Acknowledges Rees-Mogg's points but expresses concern about Parliament appearing self-indulgent at a time when constituents face significant challenges, including health and economic crises.

He criticised Conservative Members for spending time debating their own affairs, suggesting they could expedite the debate by refraining from constant interruptions.

He questioned why trade unions were concerned about workplace safety arrangements and whether Parliament was addressing these concerns appropriately.

She noted that the debate had been going on for 30 minutes, highlighting her concern over the length of speeches.

He pointed out that Opposition Members have taken more interventions than Government Members and urged them to be less critical during the debate.

We need to restore a way for all Members to participate equally instead of having a two-tier membership. Debunks myths propagated by the Leader of the House: effective scrutiny, safe return, effectiveness on behalf of constituents, line-by-line Bills scrutiny, non-contentious business arrangement, time limits on scrutiny, voting bans, compliance with social distancing, accountability, interventions as rights, and duty to country.

Announces a five-minute limit for Back Benchers' contributions.

Congratulates Mr Carmichael on securing the debate. Acknowledges sub-optimal pre-Whitsun arrangements but maintains current situation is far from optimal due to social distancing restrictions. Supports physical interventions for those in-person, while acknowledging virtual participation issues. Praises staff efforts and the successful implementation of remote voting despite initial doubts.

Pays tribute to the Chair of the Procedure Committee for her efforts during the pandemic, emphasising that any arrangements made must be temporary. He also acknowledges the successful operation of Select Committees in a virtual environment.

Acknowledges the need for decisions about parliamentary procedures to remain temporary and emphasises the importance of testing any new voting systems before implementation. She suggests using deferred Divisions as a way to ensure social distancing during votes.

Congratulates Mr Carmichael on securing the debate, highlighting the irony that those most affected by remote participation restrictions are unable to contribute fully in this debate. He argues for full restoration of hybrid arrangements and equality of opportunity for all Members to participate virtually.

I broadly support the return of Parliament in person, but a balance has to be struck between our setting an example to the country and making sure that those Members who cannot be here due to shielding or caring responsibilities are facilitated to participate. I welcomed motions for virtual participation and proxy voting, but I believe more can be done to enable these MPs to speak in debates and legislative procedures. I also agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland regarding those with caring responsibilities and childcare issues. The Prime Minister's statement that lack of childcare is a valid reason not to attend work should apply here as well, allowing Members to participate virtually.

There is a practical consideration for those with an immediate family member who is vulnerable. Many of them do not have access to carers, so the caring duty falls on them automatically.

I agree with my right hon. Friend about childcare issues. In normal circumstances, Members need to be careful when complaining about childcare as we are well paid compared to our constituents. However, at the moment, it is difficult for people to get paid childcare and many have children being educated at home, making it impossible to attend Parliament. Even if a Member can send their children to school as a key worker, they may still face challenges without access to paid childcare or family support.

As key workers, our children can go to school but there is a practical problem of how to get them to and from school if we are in Parliament performing our duties. This poses unique challenges for Members.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that key workers face practical issues when their children go to schools in the constituency and they lack access to childcare or family support. Such Members need to be able to participate virtually and vote by proxy. I also raised concerns about legislation, noting the absurd situation where gatherings of more than six people are unlawful under unvoted-on regulations.

Asked Mark Harper to give way, but was not given time due to the short duration left in his speech.

The return to Parliament last week was chaotic, rushed and ill-thought-through. Members did not know where they were voting, leading to confusion and inefficiency. The Leader of the House’s rush has disenfranchised Members and their constituents. There needs to be proper scrutiny, but this sudden conversion from the Leader of the House is questionable as he previously prorogued Parliament illegally for five weeks. This debate highlights that MPs are here not just for themselves but also for their colleagues and the people they represent. We need a review through the Procedure Committee and electronic voting should be part of it.

Agreed with the opening remarks, criticised the weakening of democracy due to pandemic measures such as the six-person limit on gatherings and quarantine regulations. Suggested that Parliament has no life because of procedural rules like the 2m distance rule and a limited number of MPs in the Chamber. Proposed instituting rapid testing for all entering the Chamber daily.

Critiqued the Government's decision to abandon virtual Parliament as dangerous, highlighting risks to health and representation of constituents. Emphasised that hybrid proceedings limit opportunities for MPs and their staff while risking public health.

Supported the return to physical meetings but acknowledged teething problems, criticised the lack of time allowed for Back Benchers under hybrid proceedings, stressed the importance of addressing backlog and the need for further debates on important local matters. Advocated for limited virtual participation and proxy voting.

The Leader of the House operates by diktat, failing to consult with relevant bodies and making decisions without proper risk or equality assessments. He shut down Parliament last year illegally, showing no contrition even after being found out by the Supreme Court. Now he makes arbitrary decisions on hybrid proceedings without consultation. I am here for Members who cannot be present due to health concerns or caring responsibilities during a pandemic, ensuring they can still represent their constituents and participate in parliamentary duties.

The claim that MPs are not working if they are not physically present is insulting. The Government's announcements leave constituents confused, with no opportunity for their representatives to intervene or question Ministers. Public Bill Committees have been unable to sit due to decisions made by the Conservative Party, contrary to the Leader of the House’s claims. The hybrid system allowed for more Bill Committees and should be resumed.

The Government decided on a mass gathering while advising people to work from home, ignoring modern working practices. Thanks to efforts of colleagues and staff, Parliament adapted to hybrid systems effectively during the pandemic. We need to move forward with these innovations for a more inclusive and effective Parliament.

Perkins criticised the government's decision to change Parliament sitting arrangements due to political concerns rather than public health needs. He argued that MPs should be present but could continue making contributions from home and suggested retaining virtual voting for social distancing purposes.

Bryant emphasised the importance of all MPs being able to participate in Parliament without restrictions. He highlighted issues such as companies laying off furloughed workers, British Airways' reconfiguration of terms and conditions, and the UK's high excess death rate. Bryant also called for consistency across the House and criticised the lack of a full assessment before bringing everyone back.

Carmichael argued that the debate is not just about MPs but about the principle of equality in participation for all elected members. He questioned why the Leader of the House insisted on abandoning this principle without justification, suggesting it was an error of judgment.