Baron questioned why MPs with proxy votes cannot contribute to Chamber debates virtually, despite being able to ask questions of the Prime Minister and participate in votes. He argued that the current measures do not balance parliamentary work with pandemic restrictions sensibly.

I thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay for securing the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. Why did the Leader of the House think it was necessary to make some sort of announcement on Twitter without having the courtesy to let the House know?

I think the whole House will welcome the flexibility that is following on from my right hon. Friend’s review of the situation. May I put it to him that it might be better, when he has developed proposals in consultation with you, Mr Speaker, and the House authorities, for them to be put to the House for debate, with the possibility of amendment?

Well, at least the Leader of the House has now accepted that, if Members are not able to be physically present, it is because of legitimate concerns they have about their own and the public’s health, rather than because they are work-shy and trying to avoid their responsibilities.

I thank the many Members who contacted my Committee following our call for evidence, wanting to see exactly this change. I am sure that they were very pleased when they saw the news on Twitter last night.

The Leader of the House will know that I am a long-serving Member of Parliament and an active parliamentarian who so much wants to be back in the Chamber doing the job that I have been doing for over 40 years. But can I say that, if anything is sub-optimal here, it is the Leader of the House? The fact of the matter is: he knows it is the Speaker’s view—Mr Speaker, I hope I can quote you on this—that this is not a safe environment for us to attend. That is the fact of the matter and that is the truth. I would have to say to the Leader of the House that my responsibility, my key and prime duty, is to my constituents. He is the man who is stopping me serving as a full Member of Parliament. Indeed, I would not be able to do my Select Committee if it had not been for, not him, but the Speaker and his intercession. The fact of the matter is he is sub-optimal—he should resign.

I am slightly embarrassed by the kind comments about my question on Thursday because others—my good friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), whose UQ it is—have been raising this issue for some time and really it is they, rather than I, who deserve plaudits. That said, may I thank the Leader of the House for calling me on Saturday to advise me of his intention to allow Members who are clinically extremely vulnerable to participate in proceedings here in the Chamber? I am looking forward to being able to raise important issues on behalf of my constituents as and when I can during the rest of my treatment. I am sorry if I missed it, but could the Leader of the House confirm when the changes will come in? While I absolutely recognise his points about the technical challenges of participation in Westminster Hall, could he please reassure the House that he will continue to explore options for participation in the second Chamber? While here, will he join me in thanking the extraordinary efforts of the digital and broadcasting teams, who have done amazing things to allow Members to be here by, as the Prime Minister puts it, the “magic of modern technology”?

Since the Leader of the House deliberately chose to exclude some MPs from debates, I have been trying to do my work in different ways. However, for example, it has taken up to five months to extract a response to my letters, not just on covid issues but on matters that are equally vital to my constituents, such as the combustible cladding scandal and the survival of local football clubs. I welcome warmly today’s announcement, particularly in relation to MPs with cancer and other conditions, but what about the rest of us who are simply heeding the Government’s advice in not coming into the House? I have to say to the Leader of the House that we are not like other key workers, who can be replaced if they cannot attend; MPs have no substitutes. How can he continue to justify deliberately preventing my constituents from being properly and thoroughly represented in Parliament?

In his opening remarks, the Leader of the House referred to the possibility of maximising what was possible. Mr Speaker, through your good offices and that of your technical team, we know that a hybrid Parliament is perfectly— [Inaudible.] Not only that; it is exercised, for example, at Prime Minister’s Question Time every week. But hitherto, those of us who are not able to attend have been denied the opportunity to take part in debates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and my—[Inaudible.]—are both senior members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Throughout the last six months, we have been taking part in plenary sessions, debates and committee hearings perfectly satisfactorily in a hybrid fashion. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would suggest that this House is not capable of doing something that Europe is capable of, so my question to him is simply this. At the last vote, 200 Members were denied the opportunity to attend, speak or vote. This time, following the lead taken by the Father of the House, will he make sure that there is a proper debate and that every Member of Parliament who wishes to do so is enabled to participate and to vote?

With due respect, I disagree with the Leader of the House. It has been proved that we can vote remotely, thanks to the wonderful work of the digital team, and that is what we should return to, but may I ask a question about Westminster Hall debates, which seem to be the crux of many of the issues that have been raised? If we cannot bring Westminster Hall debates back because of technical issues, will the Leader of the House please look into how Westminster Hall-style debates were brought back before October by conducting them in Committee Room 5, where there are the technical possibilities?

It has been said in this House that it is the duty of Members to participate physically in debates to show people that it is safe to return to work. With England in full lockdown and “work from home” a message across the UK, is it not the duty of every Member to show that working remotely can be done effectively?

May I report to the House through you, Mr Speaker, that the Liaison Committee met last week and discussed this matter at some length? Will my right hon. Friend respect how strongly many Chairs of Select Committees feel that a significant number of them are unable to carry out their constitutional function, because they cannot risk exposing themselves or their families to covid infection?

I applaud the Leader of the House and also you, Mr Speaker, for the guidance and leadership that have been given. Does the Leader of the House not agree that engagement in this place is what we are elected to do, and that the proper process should be followed?

I would like to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee. I am one of those Select Committee Chairs who do not feel that we are able to fulfil our function—not as a bauble of Parliament as the Leader of the House has just suggested—because we are unable to attend for medical reasons.

It has been fascinating listening to the Leader of the House, and I cannot help but think that he is not only gaslighting MPs but gaslighting the whole country in his responses. Paragraph 4.7 of “Erskine May” says that the Leader of the House is primarily responsible for the arrangement of government business

It is somewhat ironic that when my right hon. Friend brings forward his proposals the only people who will not be allowed to participate in the debate are those who are forced to shield. They will therefore not be able to participate in the decision making, other than having a proxy vote.

Welcomes the Leader of the House's decision to allow increased remote participation but criticises it for not being implemented sooner. Questions whether these arrangements will remain in place until the end of the pandemic.

Critiques UK productivity and highlights inefficiencies caused by current voting systems. Questions whether productivity and democratic processes could be improved with a better remote participation system.

Challenges the Leader of the House's misquoting of covid guidance and questions the impact of remote participation on equality legislation. Asks why the Commons is not adopting a fully virtual system like the Lords.

Requests a specific exemption mechanism for MPs who are advised by medical professionals to stay at home due to health risks during pregnancy.

Expresses ongoing difficulties due to long covid, highlighting the importance of remote participation in debates and Select Committees.

Questions the feasibility of full remote participation in Westminster Hall debates due to technological constraints and resource limitations.

Welcomed the Leader of the House's statement but urged him not to extend virtual debating to everyone, emphasising the importance of setting an example and being physically present in Parliament.

Asked for consideration for MPs from constituencies far from London, especially those with underlying health conditions and key workers.

Called for a more flexible approach, suggesting that video calls should be allowed for those who cannot travel due to health reasons or logistical constraints.

Asked why reasonable adjustments are not made for pregnant or disabled workers in Parliament similar to other key sectors.

Asked for an equal right for all Members to debate until the end of the parliamentary session, suggesting remote voting as a solution.

Welcomed the move and emphasised the importance of Parliament being open but asked for consideration to avoid giving an impression that only 'survival of the fittest' is valued.

Disagreed with the Leader of the House's approach and asked him to apologise for implying that shielding MPs were shirking their duty.

I welcome the Leader of the House's initiative but am concerned about excluding those with family members who are clinically extremely vulnerable from remote participation. I also worry about compelling people to disclose sensitive medical information publicly.

After my recent cancer treatment, I have been advised to reduce contacts due to the pandemic but am not clinically extremely vulnerable. I call for an extension of remote participation to all MPs who cannot travel safely.

Why did the Leader of the House exclude me from remote participation, despite being advised to self-isolate due to the pandemic?

Could we extend debates so that more Members can contribute, especially those unable to attend due to self-isolation?

Why does the Leader of the House insist on physical attendance despite Government guidance advising people to work from home if possible?

Can the Leader of the House confirm his efforts to balance competing interests in facilitating remote participation while managing legislative time constraints?

Questions the Leader of the House about breaches in the 'hands, face, space' criteria and criticises him for discussing a Member's clinical diagnosis from the Dispatch Box. Suggests an investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into discrimination practices and calls for a virtual commission to accommodate those who require it.

Welcomes the prospect of clinically extremely vulnerable individuals participating remotely in Parliament as a temporary measure and asks for assurance on when and how this Chamber will return to normal operations.

Asks for clarification on who will decide which MPs are considered clinically extremely vulnerable and how such decisions will be made.

Suggests maintaining a personal presence in Parliament as key for delivering work and setting an example.

Challenges the Leader of the House's methods of announcing changes via Twitter and disputes his claims about blockages in Bill Committee proceedings.

Endorses the importance of Parliament as an assembly for deliberation and learning, urging those who can to attend in person.

Requests that all Members be able to participate fully in debates and votes regardless of their circumstances, especially concerning EU ratification processes.

Asks the Leader of the House to allow full amendment of motions concerning parliamentary proceedings during the crisis.

During the pandemic, MPs who live far from Westminster have faced significant travel challenges. The hon. Member pointed out that he has had to drive over 10 hours on several occasions and highlighted that transport options are severely limited in many constituencies, making it difficult for them to attend Parliament as key workers.

Welcoming the Leader of the House's announcement regarding extended rights for clinically extremely vulnerable individuals, the hon. Member asked whether pregnant women, who are not considered clinically extremely vulnerable but may be excluded from participating due to Health and Safety Regulations, should also have the right to participate in debates.