Proceedings During the Pandemic (No. 4)

The Labour Party supports the motion, recognising that it is necessary given the ongoing difficulties caused by the pandemic.

Welcomes the Leader of the House for tabling this motion and urges colleagues to support it. The current arrangement, while sub-optimal, is necessary given the guidance from the Government on workplace operations during the pandemic.

The SNP fully supports the continuation of provisions for virtual participation until 3 November to allow Members to prepare properly and mitigate pressures on Chamber services due to local lockdowns and shielding restrictions in various parts of the country.

Disagrees with the consensus, criticising the current arrangement as the weakest House of Commons ever seen. Argues for a functioning House to handle significant decisions in October regarding economic recovery, Brexit negotiations, and potential second wave of covid-19.

Supports extending these measures until 3 November but argues for better methods of addressing burning issues related to the economy, Brexit, and responding to a possible second wave of covid-19. Pledges support for constituents in navigating business challenges under the current uncertainty.

Disappointed that despite returning from recess, the number of MPs allowed in the Chamber remains at 50. Believes current measures are not proportionate and undermine civil liberties. Argues for more regular debates on these matters.

Questions whether the current measures, such as social distancing, are proportional given past pandemics like Hong Kong flu which led to 80,000 deaths. Expresses skepticism over necessity of stringent restrictions.

Supports having a debate on the matter but urges flexibility if Government guidance changes before November regarding potential adjustments to parliamentary operations based on new evidence.

Agrees with previous speakers and criticises lack of scrutiny in decision-making, citing recent examples like the sudden extension of tenant eviction restrictions without proper assessment. Emphasises the importance of timely reviews based on emerging evidence.

Defends current arrangements as necessary for setting an example to the nation and maintaining public health guidelines. Explains that while numbers are currently limited, this is under Speaker's discretion based on Public Health England advice.

Argues Parliament is missing out on important debates and scrutiny due to current limitations. Expresses concern that the House is not functioning as it should, despite staff returning to work in SW1.

Surprised by the comparison drawn between Members' presence in the Chamber and the spontaneity of oral Question Time. Emphasised that spontaneity is lost even with remote participation, and unlucky ballot members are silenced.

Encourages more Members to be present but acknowledges the permissive nature of remote participation. Supports facilitating remote participation for those in local lockdowns until confident there will not be further local lockdowns.

Agrees that vulnerable Members should still have the ability to participate remotely, but argues for proper testing of every Member daily to restore spontaneity in the House.

Responds to David Davis by explaining that a negative test result does not guarantee one is clear, as they may have caught the virus prior to testing.

Argues against the effectiveness of testing in any form and suggests either fully accepting or completely disregarding it.

Explains that 14-day quarantine ensures one is clear, while those with symptoms need to self-isolate for seven days. Emphasises the importance of remote participation for vulnerable Members and maintaining social distancing within the Chamber.

Suggests looking at optimising seat usage in the House to allow more spontaneous participation, questioning current rules restricting certain seats.