← Back to House of Commons Debates
Virtual Participation in Debate
24 November 2020
Lead MP
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Standards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 64
At a Glance
Jacob Rees-Mogg raised concerns about virtual participation in debate in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Proposed an amendment to permit Members who are medically certified as clinically extremely vulnerable or equivalent according to official public health guidance in the UK countries, to participate virtually in designated debates.
Valerie Vaz
Lab
Walsall and Bloxwich
Expressed astonishment at the Leader of the House for moving the motion formally, questioning why a certificate is required, and criticised the Government's lack of transparency and courtesy.
David Linden
SNP
Glasgow East
Questioned whether the Government's actions reflect their previous statements about the importance of Parliament and taking control, expressing concern that they might be panicking.
Kevan Jones
Lab
North Durham
Expressed concerns over mental health conditions being disclosed unnecessarily due to the requirement for a medical certificate.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Critiqued the Leader of the House's actions, questioning why business was pulled without prior notice or courtesy, especially after promising earlier that certain matters would be debated.
Asked for clarification on his arrival time and sought an opportunity to contribute as a member of the Procedure Committee.
Darren Jones
Lab
Bristol North West
Argued that Chairs of Committees need full debate opportunities despite their cross-party roles and responsibilities. Highlighted the limitations imposed by not extending virtual participation.
Pointed out a specific case where a Member's absence was due to family circumstances beyond clinical vulnerability, questioning if the motion covers such extreme cases.
Chris Elmore
Lab
Bridgend
Agreed that invading privacy of family members is an issue and questioned the fairness in exposing family health information for political purposes. He emphasised the importance of representing constituents without compromising their personal situations.
Karen Bradley
Con
Staffordshire Moorlands
Mentioned a Member who cannot attend due to prioritising his wife's health, supporting the virtual participation argument for those with specific family circumstances.
Noted the contradiction in limiting debate when previously championing it and pointed out the Government’s recent actions which reduced Back-Bench MPs’ opportunities to speak physically.
Wes Streeting
Lab
Ilford North
Discussed how pandemic measures disproportionately affect women and mothers, impacting childcare responsibilities. He emphasised that proposed restrictions on debate participation are inappropriate due to these social issues.
Challenged the perceived hypocrisy of the Government's stance towards virtual participation rights, questioning the honourable nature of restricting MPs' ability to represent constituents.
Jeff Smith
Lab
Manchester Withington
Highlighted the irony in the Leader of the House’s actions against previous stances supporting parliamentary debates and representation. Criticised the disparity in treatment compared to the Prime Minister's remote participation.
Fleur Anderson
Lab
Putney
Questioned why the Prime Minister could participate virtually without being clinically vulnerable, while other Members are restricted. Emphasised equal representation for all constituents regardless of health status.
Andrew Griffith
Con
Arundel and South Downs
Argued against a perceived filibuster by the Opposition party trying to obstruct a motion that aims to provide voice to clinically shielding colleagues. He emphasised the need for such measures.
Accused the Government of disregarding House Committees and limiting Back-Bench MPs' opportunities to participate physically in debates, criticising their actions as disrespectful.
John Spellar
Lab
Warley
Asked a point of order clarifying whether it is 100 Members voting or 100 Members in the Aye Lobby that constitutes quorum.
Jessica Morden
Lab
Newport East
Spoke on behalf of her colleague Vicky Foxcroft, emphasising the unfairness of forcing MPs to disclose their health conditions for proxy voting rights.
Agreed that the current motion would breach confidentiality and potentially expose private medical information about MPs to the public.
Patrick Grady
SNP
North Glasgow
Critiqued the inconsistency in arguments by the Leader of the House, stating that after weeks of denying virtual participation, it is now conceded for some but not all under special circumstances.
Questioned whether using different criteria for clinically extremely vulnerable status between Scotland and England poses issues for MPs seeking proxy voting rights.
Shaun Bailey
Con
Hammersmith
Suggested that if workers need to get certificates from GPs for reasonable adjustments, it should be acceptable for MPs as well.
Asked a point of order seeking clarification on the voting rights of Members for closure motions and whether 100 Members must go through the Aye Lobby.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Highlighted the challenges faced by Scottish MPs due to travel requirements, particularly mentioning the unavailability of Caledonian Sleeper services which increases vulnerability risks.
Defended the logic behind virtual participation for clinically vulnerable individuals based on Government guidelines that suggest work-from-home if possible and businesses should facilitate it.
Andrew Griffith
Con
Arundel and South Downs
Argued against blocking the motion, suggesting that doing so would deny clinically vulnerable colleagues an opportunity to participate virtually.
Clarified procedural rules for addressing points of order, pointing out that Andrew Griffith incorrectly referred to someone as 'you' instead of specifying Madam Deputy Speaker.
Lilian Greenwood
Lab
Nottingham South
Ms Greenwood highlighted the changes in technology infrastructure since hybrid proceedings were discontinued, emphasising the need for these improvements to be reflected in decision-making processes.
Jeff Smith
Lab
Manchester Withington
Mr Smith questioned why technological faults are used as a reason to avoid virtual contributions when the House of Lords manages debates without such issues. He suggested that making perfect conditions the standard is counterproductive.
Mr Spellar expressed surprise at the lack of use of 'world beating' technology by Government Ministers, despite its success in parliamentary operations.
Mr Brown questioned why MPs should be required to visit GPs for routine appointments when many constituents struggle with limited access due to pandemic measures.
Nick Smith
Lab
Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney
Mr Smith praised Ms Laing for taking colleagues' points into account, noting that Parliamentarians are increasingly proficient in using Teams and Zoom for communication.
Mr Gullis expressed concern about the message it would send to public sector workers if MPs were treated differently regarding attendance during a pandemic.
Wes Streeting
Lab
Ilford North
Mr Streeting argued that public sector workers understand and abide by rules, especially given reported pay freezes affecting their morale.
Mr Bailey found comments made during the debate offensive and requested Ms Laing to withdraw a comment perceived as disrespectful towards his hon. Friend Eddie Hughes.
Mr Hughes responded defensively to Mr Bailey's accusation, suggesting that he was the one making jokes.
Mr Grady pointed out inconsistencies in how the Government handled English votes for English laws procedures during the pandemic, highlighting perceived discrimination against Scottish Members of Parliament.
Fleur Anderson
Lab
Putney
Ms Anderson agreed that exclusion from parliamentary debates is a form of double discrimination affecting both Members and their constituents.
Mr Linden raised concerns about the ability of MPs to quickly address bad practices through points of order, suggesting virtual participation could help in this regard.
Peter Kyle
Lab
Hove and Portslade
Mr Kyle questioned whether MPs should be required to obtain sick notes from GPs when using Zoom for work purposes during the pandemic.
Karen Bradley
Con
Staffordshire Moorlands
Ms Bradley asked Ms Laing to comment on remarks made by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about discouraging people from coming into work with illnesses, suggesting this was contradictory to some MP positions.
Karen Bradley
Con
Staffordshire Moorlands
The debate concerns the procedures under coronavirus, with Karen Bradley expressing her disappointment at the unexpected nature of the debate and acknowledging the work done by the Procedure Committee to adapt proceedings. She emphasises that recommendations have been made to make the best of a sub-optimal situation caused by social distancing measures.
Expresses gratitude towards staff and Clerks for their efforts during the pandemic, highlighting their work in making the current system as effective as possible.
Chris Elmore
Lab
Bridgend
Acknowledges the innovative approach taken by the House but criticises the Leader of the House for not showing similar forward-thinking now. He emphasises that some Members were willing to participate in physical proceedings despite challenges.
Recalls a session with the Japanese Parliament where they were praised for their innovative solutions but later had to inform them that the Government has stopped those efforts, highlighting the frustration this caused.
Liz Twist
Lab
Blaydon and Consett
Highlights a successful trial run of a Bill Committee which worked well and could have been another way to ensure progress on Government business despite current restrictions.
Points out that the Government's approach of putting statutory instruments through the main Chamber is freeing up space for hybrid solutions, suggesting this as part of the solution.
Chris Elmore
Lab
Bridgend
Defends Members who were willing to participate in physical proceedings during the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee and emphasises that a hybrid facility fallback was available to protect witnesses. He also mentions the case of his right hon. Friend, Dame Cheryl Gillan.
North Cotswolds
Supports the motion unamended, urging for the most vulnerable Members to be able to participate in debates and expresses concern for those unable to take part since March.
Puts on record the case of his hon. Friend Alicia Kearns who is heavily pregnant and asks if 'or equivalent' in the motion extends to her situation.
Paul Holmes
Con
Hamble Valley
Argues that if the motion fails, those Members whom Karen Bradley wants to involve will not be involved, leading to a worst-case scenario.
Concerned about whether proxy voters have had time to consult all members they are representing in a free vote and urges for the amendment to be accepted.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Expresses his wish for vulnerable Members like Dame Cheryl Gillan to participate fully but argues that the amendment seeks to allow more people to do so, not fewer. Urges the Leader of the House to accept the amendment.
Meg Hillier
Lab Co-op
Hackney South and Shoreditch
Pays tribute to members like Dame Cheryl Gillan who have been unable to contribute due to self-isolation, urging for this issue to be resolved tonight so they can participate fully.
North Cotswolds
Reiterates his support for the motion unamended and emphasises the need to at least enable vulnerable Members to participate in debates.
Suggests that the Government could accept the amendment tonight, criticising the curtailment of debate into less than two hours as not being the fault of the House or Procedure Committee.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Bryant criticises the government for not allowing proper debate, arguing that tabling a motion without prior consultation undermines parliamentary procedure. He calls for a consensual approach where Members can express their views freely and vote accordingly. Additionally, he emphasises the importance of treating MP responsibilities in line with public health guidelines and maintaining equal treatment across different regions within the UK.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
Intervenes to highlight that the upcoming division regarding House business will not be representative if many Members are unable to participate due to travel restrictions, raising concerns about the current unsatisfactory position of the House.
Fleur Anderson
Lab
Putney
Intervenes to support her colleague's argument and emphasises the need for accommodation of all Members' requirements during debates.
Reiterates the point that the government's refusal to accommodate Scottish MPs who cannot travel due to specific legislation is detrimental, reinforcing the case for independence within Scotland.
North Cotswolds
Asked for advice on whether the debate should cease if it goes up to 7 o'clock due to concerns about clinically vulnerable Members.
Lindsay Hoyle
Speaker
Chorley
Responded that everyone in the House knows what is happening and reiterated his decision not to extend the debate further.
Provided information on tomorrow's business, including motions related to the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill and appointments to various committees that were delayed to accommodate today's important debate.
Called for a response from the shadow Leader of the House regarding the postponement of motions.
Shadow Response
Valerie Vaz
Shadow Response
Questioned why certificates were necessary, criticised the Government for pulling business without notice, and highlighted the importance of transparency in the House.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.