Both houses of Parliament have long been associated with inaccessibility, with working patterns designed around the diaries of married, middle-aged men. MPs who were ill, pregnant or hundreds of miles away in their constituencies often found themselves locked out of contributing. National politics has long been a particularly difficult place for people with disabilities and those who care for others.

So, the virtual parliamentary proceedings during the Covid-19 pandemic were a boon for voters’ representation. But also, a new report shows, it’s also proven popular as well, with almost 7 out of 10 British adults wanting MPs to continue to be able to participate remotely.

Parliament can modernise if it wants to

The pandemic has shown that Parliament can modernise when it needs to. MPs have been taking part in debates and voting remotely, allowing those who’ve been shielding or caring for others to keep speaking up for their constituents.

The new report from the Centenary Action Group shows that more than half of women MPs took advantage of proxy-voting, due to Covid-19 medical reasons and caring responsibilities – which are frequently shouldered by women.

Conservative MP Maria Miller has thrown her weight behind the virtual proceedings being made permanent, saying: “We need to make sure that we do not exclude anybody from standing for election to this place because of their gender, disability, race, religion or sexuality”.

Banning virtual participation restricts participation

But despite virtual proceedings being highly popular, the government plans to scrap virtual representation next month as Covid-19 measures ease nationally. Westminster will return to the old fashioned style of politics where if you can’t attend in person, you can’t be heard.

[bctt tweet=”Westminster will return to the old fashioned style of politics where if you can’t attend in person, you can’t be heard.” username=”electoralreform”]

Campaigners for a more virtual system insist that retaining remote working technology will allow MPs to participate while balancing health, home, travel or constituency responsibilities.

The Remotely Representative House report advocates new ways of working to be retained when needed. Helen Pankhurst, Centenary Action Group Convenor said: “It’s hard to believe that while the rest of the country is embracing new ways of working through screens, mobiles and laptops Parliament is considering turning its back on the technological innovations ushered in during the pandemic.”

Scrapping a virtual system that has been proven to work and widen access can only harm the representativeness of our politics. A case in point was former minister Tracey Crouch recently being excluded in a key debate on Breast Cancer… precisely because she was at home shielding due to having breast cancer herself. This is not something we should ever have to witness in a 21st democracy.

Karen Bradly MP, Chair of the Procedure Committee, added: “Those who cannot be here must be allowed to participate and have their voices heard and to represent their constituents. They were elected in exactly the same way as those of us who can be here physically, and they need to be heard.”

Virtual proceedings will never take the place of parliamentary proceedings. But a hybrid model – allowing in-person and remote contributions – has proven effective. Removing it now would be a major step backwards, and a waste of the progress we have made.

Image by ©UK Parliament / Jessica Taylor  under CC BY-NC 2.0

Help us scrutinise scrutiny by joining the ERS today

Join the Electoral Reform Society

Commons leader Jacob Rees Mogg has announced a partial return to remote proceedings for MPs, after the shocking case of ex-Minister Tracey Crouch – who has cancer – being unable to contribute to a debate on cancer last week.

The Electoral Reform Society is calling for an extension of virtual contributions for all MPs who are isolating – such as the PM – or those who are otherwise unable to attend Parliament due to the pandemic.

At the moment, MPs cannot currently take part in legislative stages or debates remotely. Yet only 50 MPs are being allowed in the Commons chamber. Meanwhile, MPs continue to vote in person, or must self-certify that they are unable to attend due to health reasons to obtain a proxy vote.

While some MPs can take part in some proceedings remotely (oral questions, urgent questions and ministerial statements), that only covers MPs who have self-certified as being unable to attend Westminster for medical/public health reasons related to the pandemic

And while it’s good news that the Commons leader is investigating a partial return to remote proceedings, it should not have taken an MP with cancer being effectively locked out of a cancer debate.

These urgent changes must go beyond simply opening up contributions to MPs who are ‘extremely clinically vulnerable’, as planned. All representatives who are isolating or unable to attend must be able to speak up for their voters.

The ERS noted as early as June that the abrupt shut-down of remote participation was bound to leave communities unrepresented as the pandemic continued to rage. The Commons took a step backwards in ending this too early. Now, with England in national lockdown, dealing with this brewing crisis of representation is even more urgent.

The Speaker has previously suggested taking on powers for the management of virtual proceedings, to ensure that these decisions are taken out of party politics. It makes much more sense for the Speaker – elected by all of Parliament – to have this role, rather than the Commons leader whose mandate derives from prime ministerial appointment.

MPs and voters need consistency and transparent standards for how these crucial democratic decisions are made. We can’t have a return to the conga line chaos we saw in June, or the decisions simply being made on a whim by a minister.

And MPs need clarity about how they can continue to represent their voters during this stark second wave and beyond.

We all need to see far greater transparency over how these decisions on participation are made, rather than ministers being forced to act at the last moment.  With the PM now isolating, he may know how frustrating it is to be unable to contribute to legislative debates.

We’re awaiting further details of these changes, but the Commons leader needs to move swiftly and to let all MPs contribute if remotely if they need to. Since some MPs may be isolating or not safe to travel in person, there’s a real threat for democratic representation and political equality if remote participation continues to be strictly limited or indeed denied.

Virtual proceedings in the summer were a real success in bringing Parliament into the 21^st century. Let’s learn from that and ensure all voters are heard.

Support our work by becoming a member of the ERS

This month has seen a renewed interest in proportional representation internationally. Willie Sullivan backed up the case for a fairer voting system in Canada, drawing on his experience in Scotland. “If you want a system of government that is better able to deal with divisions, you need a system that is based on consensus and representation of different views. Not just a black or white, wrong or right, we’re up-you’re down type of politics,” he told Canadian news outlets.

In New Zealand, ERS election research was cited as highlighting the true dangers of winner-takes-all – in contrast to PR. The election showed the value and power of equal votes.

ERS’ blogs were also picked up by the Guernsey press as they held a FPTP-on-overdrive election.

In the UK, the ERS were the only ones to draw the link over unfair distribution of Towns Fund spending, where millions were recently handed largely to marginal seats.

And we explained Labour’s newly-adopted STV voting system, as members pick the new National Executive Committee.

Voter ID back on the agenda

As the government confirms it plans to push ahead with mandatory voter ID, we put the issue back in the spotlight, as featured in the I newspaper.

We also brought together a coalition of organisations to explain the issue in this in-depth Byline investigation.

We’ll be following the conversation around voter suppression in the US with interest, with a large number of states having strict and often partisan ID policies in place this election.

Private member’s club

Darren Hughes spoke to GQ (sadly not about fashion trends) on the need for an overhaul of the second chamber. “You can understand why so many people feel ignored,” he said. “This pressure is going to come to the surface. Why not tackle it proactively and positively rather than deal with disaster and acrimony when people are fed up?”

Support for Lords reform came from all places, with Lord Jack McConnell saying he was ashamed of being part of the chamber, amid growing calls for it to be reformed. Several pieces such as this quoted our Survation poll which found just 12 percent of those polled back the Lords in its current state. In contrast, 43 percent say it must be reformed, while 28 percent say it should be scrapped altogether.

National spotlight

ERS Cymru re-launched their manifesto for Wales’ Senedd elections next May, with a full page spread in the Western Mail backing STV, greater diversity, and more resources for the Welsh Parliament.

October also saw ERS Cymru back calls for a return to virtual proceedings in the Senedd – a call that was heeded as Wales headed in to its ‘fire break’ lockdown.

In Scotland, Willie Sulilvan shined a light on corporate lobbying amid fears over legal loopholes.

Campaign rules

We kept pushing the crucial policies from the Democracy in the Dark report throughout October, as the Electoral Commission published new figures on spending which we pre-empted in our findings.

The ERS also spearheaded a letter in the FT marking the launch of the Centenary Action Group’s new report. We want to see greater transparency over candidate diversity.

And we kept working behind the scenes on vital consultations such as the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s review of the role of the Electoral Commission. UCL’s Constitution Unit drew on our evidence in this piece – well worth a read.

The pandemic has continued to highlight the dangers of hyper-centralised Westminster politics. ERS policies would go a long way to handing power back to voters across the UK. Over the next couple of months we’ll be reflecting on the US’ winner-takes-all system, exploring the need for virtual Parliament proceedings, sounding the alarm on voter ID, and continuing to push for PR both in Westminster and at a local level. Make sure you’re signed up for ERS updates so you can hear it first.

You can help get the case for reform in front of millions by supporting the work of the ERS media team – with membership of the ERS.

Become a member of the ERS today

When the ‘virtual Parliament’ was launched at the end of April, the UK was witnessing around 5,000 new coronavirus cases a day.

The first wave subsided. But now, we are seeing over 15,000 new cases a day. Northern Ireland is in a national lockdown and Wales is joining it. Meanwhile, Westminster has around 1,700 active Covid cases, according to 16^th October figures.

Parliament itself has sadly had a significant number of coronavirus cases – some very serious indeed.

Sadly, the government ended fully ‘hybrid’ proceedings in June, with MPs no longer being able to participate and vote remotely on equal terms with MPs present.

The ERS called for the government to rethink ending virtual proceedings so early. But the government insisted that MPs must attend in-person to send a message to voters.

Now, voters are being asked to work from home if they can. But MPs and their staff risk being pushed to attend, even when travelling to and from high-risk areas.

Now the Speaker of the House of Commons, and senior figures across parties, are calling for the return of virtual proceedings, as coronavirus cases in the UK continue to climb.

MPs cannot currently take part in legislative stages or debates remotely. Yet only 50 MPs are being allowed in the Commons chamber. Meanwhile, MPs continue to vote in person, or must self-certify that they are unable to attend due to health reasons to obtain a proxy vote.

While some MPs can take part in some proceedings remotely (oral questions, urgent questions and ministerial statements), that only covers MPs who have self-certified as being unable to attend Westminster for medical/public health reasons related to the pandemic

The ERS has previously led calls for the continuation of virtual proceedings, contributing to a partial government u-turn in June.

Parliament has a duty to safeguard staff as well as voters’ representatives. A super-spreader event in the Palace of Westminster would be incredibly damaging not just for health but for public trust too.

With London now a high-risk area, Parliament must respond swiftly and efficiently – ensuring all MPs can fully participate before they risk being locked out.

The power to switch to virtual proceedings rests with the government. In future, there’s a strong case that this should be transferred to a cross-party Speaker’s commission to ensure the power is not used with partisan interests in mind. With different nations facing different restrictions, refusing to allow remote participation could hit some areas’ representation harder than others.

Remote voting was working well before the government shut it down. Reinstating this would be a good start at ensuring everyone’s voice is heard in Parliament – not just those with MPs who feel able to travel in.

It’s clear that the government must work with the Speaker and backbenchers. MPs and staff are rightly concerned about the risks of being shut out of participation by the pandemic – and voters deserve to know they’ll be represented in the Commons.

Read the ERS’ briefing on virtual proceedings.

After uproar from MPs, democracy campaigners and the wider public, the government made a welcome u-turn last week.

Ministers had initially seemed intent on shutting down virtual engagement altogether. But the absurd images of MPs queueing for a kilometre around Parliament turned the process into a laughing stock. Worse still, over 100 MPs were effectively locked out of the decision to shut down virtual proceedings – because it was conducted entirely in person.

This was deeply concerning – and in breach of core democratic principles. It also showed just many voters could be disenfranchised by the move to end remote voting: MPs who were caring for vulnerable family members, or who were themselves particularly at risk from Covid, would not be able to take part.

Not only that – the shut down was deeply unpopular: a poll by YouGov showed that 76% of British people think MPs should be allowed to continue working remotely. As the government advice went, if people can work from home, they should.

The debate in Parliament on Monday was full of impassioned speeches: making the case that now was not the time to shut down virtual participation. Campaigning was paying off. Nadia Whittome MP quoted ERS chief executive Darren Hughes in her speech: “To cut down remote participation amid a pandemic would be reckless and wrong”.

There were hints of at a concession coming. Commons leader Rees-Mogg said he was considering extending proxy voting (where an MP lets another vote on their behalf) to those ‘more widely affected by the pandemic’ – going beyond the initial plan for proxy voting to include those who were themselves vulnerable.

On Wednesday, that concession was confirmed and agreed by MPs. The absurd ‘conga line’ voting system was also replaced with electronic voting machines in Parliament. It was a step forward, after several steps back.

How not to approach changes to our democracy

The whole farce has been an abject lesson in how not to approach changes to our democracy. Ministers initially insisted on what looked like a full shut down of all remote participation, before the farce of enormous queues to vote, and the prospect of scores of MPs being effectively locked out of politics triggered a u-turn.

It’s good news that at-risk MPs and those caring for ‘shielding’ family members will now be able to contribute to Commons questions remotely, and vote via proxy. Over 120 have taken up the proxy voting option already.

But the far easier and safer option would have been to maintain remote voting and virtual contributions for the duration of the pandemic.

This week’s wins have at least reduced the prospect of millions of voters being made voiceless and locked out of politics.

The government must keep the option open for returning to fully hybrid proceedings should the health threats worsen. It would only take one or two MPs to unknowingly have coronavirus for many MPs to be put at risk – it’s been clear from watching voting this past week that maintaining the two metre distance has not always been possible.

Sadly what we’ve seen has been typical of Westminster’s centralised decision-making, with an over-powerful executive and scrutiny being hampered.

What we’ve seen has been typical of Westminster’s centralised decision-making, with an over-powerful executive and scrutiny being hampered. Click To Tweet

Our democracy remains far too vulnerable to these risks – and we need long-lasting political reform to put voters first.

We must not return to business as usual after this crisis. Instead, let’s learn some lessons from how Parliament can adapt.

Image: © UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor

Sign our petition for a fair voting system that puts voters first

A new report delves into how Parliament has responded to the current pandemic – and holds up a mirror to Westminster’s centralised set-up.  

Fair Vote UK’s report Democracy in the Age of Pandemic sets out the good and bad ways that Westminster has adapted to the coronavirus crisis – drawing on evidence from across the world. We were pleased to contribute the report at the ERS, as one of the key commentators on the ‘virtual Parliament’ proceedings.

It’s a timely publication, particularly given growing concerns over attempts to shut down remote participation for MPs.

The report stems from consultation with over 80 organisations, experts, and citizens. Early drafts of the report in April were full of praise for Parliament’s response to the pandemic – the shift to fully remote voting, virtual select committees and video contributions. Though it had been slow off the mark, Westminster’s hybrid solution – part social distancing, part digitisation – had been a ‘sensible and welcome mix of familiarity and innovation’.

Fast forward a couple of months, and we’ve witnessed the farcical scenes of MPs queuing for 40 minutes per vote (the ‘Commons conga line’), while shielding and vulnerable MPs have been disenfranchised – ‘jeopardising the good progress that had been made’, FairVote point out.

The ERS and FairVote agree that: “Abandoning the virtual Parliament was an irresponsible decision that should be reversed.” A recent poll by YouGov showed that 76% of British people think MPs should be allowed to continue working remotely.

So why was the government so keen to shut this down? And how did they manage it?

One reason is the centralised nature of democracy in the UK – which puts huge power in the hands of the executive. In contrast to other advanced democracies like New Zealand and Germany, Westminster’s system is built on unearned majorities and resisting opposition – rather than working together.

In contrast to other advanced democracies like New Zealand and Germany, Westminster’s system is built on unearned majorities and resisting opposition – rather than working together. Click To Tweet

Below we republish part of FairVote’s report – on the long-term changes needed to tip the balance from executive power towards voters and representatives.

A significant proportion of respondents to Fair Vote UK’s consultation saw in this crisis not only the exposure of deep democratic shortcomings, but also the opportunity to introduce bold solutions…

They can be divided into three subcategories:

1. Increased democratic engagement
2. Decentralisation of power and emboldening of local authorities
3. Proportional representation

Increasing democratic engagement

Multiple respondents argued for greater public participation in the democratic process. Frequently, they advocated reform took the shape of citizens’ assemblies. It was argued by numerous respondents that their introduction would improve political scrutiny, bolster public confidence and help foster bipartisan consensus.^[1]

This was something promoted in the Electoral Reform Society’ submission to the consultation. An assembly or jury (composed of a representative sample of the population) could review legislation or emergency powers and thus act as an extra-parliamentary check on executive powers already massively extended as a result of the crisis.^[2] In this regard, remote citizens’ assemblies seem especially well suited to the particularities of the current challenge…^.

Decentralising power

Secondly, many raised the related problem of over-centralised power. This crisis has demonstrated the importance of the central state, but it has also shown us that many problems are best tackled by the authorities closest to them.

In their response to this consultation, the Electoral Reform Society noted that the United Kingdom’s, ‘set-up is already one of the most centralised, undemocratic systems among advanced democracies’, and warned that, ‘this crisis must not further entrench that’.^[3] Strengthening the many non-Westminster levels of the United Kingdom’s political system – from the devolved Parliaments to local councils – would allow a faster and potentially more robust response to a crisis like Covid-19.

This was the argument made by S. Bishop, who called for the devolution of, ‘much more power (and money) to the regions’, as well as the symbolic relocation of the country’s seat of government to the Midlands.^[4] C. Mann noted similar, writing that the ‘imbalance’ at the heart of the relationship between the United Kingdom’s four countries needed to be ‘overhauled’.^[5]

Proportional representation

Thirdly, multiple respondents made the case that the United Kingdom’s First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system had exacerbated the problems being faced in this crisis.^[6]…The core argument was that a proportional voting system would instil a more pluralistic and collaborative political culture, thus facilitating the kind of bipartisan cooperation that such a large number of the questionnaire’s respondents expressly desired.

The Electoral Reform Society also stressed this point, claiming that FPTP, ‘locks out millions of ordinary people from the debate’, and undermines ‘cooperative politics’ from taking root both at the national and local level.^[7]

Notably, their submission argued that this weakness of our system would be particularly felt as we emerge from this crisis and into a world where deep questions about public policy, how to pay for the Covid-19 response and the status of various sections of society and the economy will have to be debated and answered.^[8]

These three areas cover a lot of different ground. At their heart, however, is a desire to strengthen and deepen democracy…There is undoubtedly a public sense that in this tragic challenge lies the potential for positive, lasting change.

Read Democracy in the Age of Pandemic here.

^[1] D. Sibley, S. Bishop, J. Wire & E. Riminton-Drury, Written Evidence. Appendicies 83, 61, 52 & 14.

^[2] Electoral Reform Society, Written Evidence. Appendix 85.

^[3] Electoral Reform Society, Written Evidence. Appendix 85.

^[4] S. Bishop, Written Evidence. Appendix 61.

^[5] C. Mann, Written Evidence. Appendix 79.

^[6] R. Hurst, J. Brian, D. Williams & N. S. Horsley, Written Evidence. Appendicies 28, 48, 57 & 80.

^[7] Electoral Reform Society, Written Evidence. Appendix 85.

^[8] Ibid.

Sign our petition for a fair voting system in the UK

The ERS is calling on the government to back common sense plans for remote participation in the Commons to continue while the pandemic still rages.

The government’s proposals for ending remote participation – being debated today – will see MPs forced to be on the Parliamentary estate in order to vote and speak up for voters.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission have challenged the proposals for potentially locking out disabled and shielding MPs.

The plans could also see huge queues for MPs to be able to vote in the Chamber – taking far longer than digital voting and leading to chaos and confusion.

The written list of who voted won’t be available for “a couple of hours” says Commons clerk Dr Benger, while staff will have to look at video of the votes to compile it by hand. It is a farcical approach.

The Procedure Committee – backed by leading Conservative MPs – and opposition parties have both submitted amendments enabling remote participation for MPs unable to attend due to health concerns.

Make no mistake: cutting off all remote participation without provision for shielding MPs risks leaving representatives locked out, and millions of voters made voiceless. This is deeply worrying, and must be addressed urgently.

It would be senseless to stop remote participation while the coronavirus crisis continues. We call on the government to listen to the concerns of the Procedure Committee, shielding MPs, equality groups, and voters to avoid turning this into a rump Parliament where scores of representatives are unable to take part.

There are common-sense compromises on the table today. They must not be cast simply for the sake of reversing progress.

For many, the ‘virtual’ innovations brought in by the House of Commons wasn’t just a practical response to the coronavirus crisis – it had real positives.

Less booing and jeering during Prime Minister’s Questions, the ability to call Select Committee witnesses from afar through video-link, slashing ‘division’ times for MPs down from up to an hour to just 15 minutes through remote voting – just a few examples of the upsides of the adaptations.

MPs from far ends of the UK noted that they’d be able to spend more time in their constituencies if they could contribute remotely, or that they could spend more time on casework if voting times were cut down through online voting.

Sadly, the virtual proceedings – or more specifically, ‘hybrid proceedings’, as MPs could attend in person or virtually – will come to a sharp end when Parliament returns after recess.

But an important parliamentary committee is currently taking views on what went well (and what didn’t) – to learn long-term lessons about how the Commons adapted to this crisis.

Are there innovations that should be kept? Should MPs continue to be able to vote and contribute remotely where necessary, after the pandemic is over?

The Commons’ handling of the crisis (unlike the Lords’…) shows that Parliament can modernise when it needs to. And it does need to…

You can submit your views to the Commons’ Procedure Committee, to speak up about the proceedings during the coronavirus crisis.

The ERS is particularly interested in how scrutiny could have been strengthened to stand up for voters – and which of the adaptations should last.

Their call for evidence says:

“The Committee will consider submissions relating to any aspect of House procedure and practice affected by coronavirus restrictions.

“The Committee will also consider proposals for further changes to procedure and practice which may be necessary to allow the House’s business to continue under such restrictions.

“Although the procedural changes made are strictly temporary, the Committee may wish to evaluate whether any features of the changes merit adoption by the House.”

If you think Parliament needs to be brought into the 21st century, this is your chance…

The deadline is midday on Thursday 4th June.  

Despite the best efforts of a cross-party coalition of MPs to stop the ‘shutdown’, Wednesday marked the end of the successful Virtual Parliament proceedings in the Commons.

It means that from June 2^nd (after recess), all 650 MPs will all have to travel in if they are to debate and vote on legislation.

Justifying the decision, Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg told MPs: “Each and every one of 36 bills put forward in Queen’s Speech deserves a proper level of scrutiny.”

It was misleading for a few reasons.

Firstly, if social distancing is maintained, only 50 or so MPs will be allowed in the chamber after recess. That means the number of MPs able to engage and stand up for voters has just been cut off in one fell swoop, by ending remote contributions.

Secondly, scrapping remote voting will also mean less time for actual debate. The past couple of weeks have seen remote voting start to really bear fruit. It takes just 15 minutes for MPs to vote online – versus up to an hour per division with social distancing. That’s 650 MPs packing the narrow Westminster corridors for far longer than they would otherwise.

And thirdly, while the government claims the decision is to boost ‘scrutiny’, this announcement came on the same day that No 10 installed their preferred choice for the chair of the only committee the Prime Minister is obliged to appear before: the Liaison Committee of select committee chairs.

Previously the chair of this committee was already a select committee chair – elected by all MPs. Ministers have overridden this principle to pick their preferred scrutineer. That is never a healthy situation for democracy – however noble the politician.

Instead of shutting down the option for remote contributions, a compromise would have been to have a genuinely ‘hybrid’ system – letting MPs who wish to vote remotely do so, as well as giving time for a certain proportion of contributions to come from outside the chamber by video-link.

As is stands, MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland fear being effectively locked out – having to travel hundreds of miles (often on public transport) to attend Parliament – potentially in breach of those nations’ ‘stay at home’ guidance.

We should be learning from how Parliament has adapted during this crisis, not stymieing this practical innovation. Rather than packing hundreds of people into narrow voting lobbies, the government should enable remote voting for the duration of the pandemic, and learn from this process.

MPs who are ill, pregnant or based hundreds of miles from Westminster should not be cast aside by a rushed return to ‘business as usual’ – while slowing down the process of voting to a standstill.

If the Commons leader wants to increase Parliamentary scrutiny of legislation – a laudable aim –moving from 15-minute online voting to hour-long divisions will only hinder this effort.

Parliament has set a positive example for flexible working amid this crisis. We should keep learning from the hybrid proceedings as we come out of this pandemic, so we can make Parliament even more effective in the years to come.

The rationale for the ‘virtual Parliament shutdown’ is misguided at best. At worst, it’s deeply misleading.

Over the past week, we’ve seen a glimpse of why Ministers are so keen to end the ‘virtual Parliament’ procedures.

Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg recently announced that MPs must return next month – despite being able to vote, legislate and contribute to debates from home. He told the Commons it was to ‘set an example’ to the rest of the country – to go to work.

But the Financial Times was among several outlets reporting a different reason for the move:

“Senior Conservatives have called for all MPs to be allowed to return to the House of Commons, as they become concerned Boris Johnson is struggling in the deserted chamber in his encounters with new Labour leader Keir Starmer.”

Over the past month, MPs have shown that they can work from home. In fact, it can be even more effective than working from Parliament in some ways – voting times have been cut down from up to an hour with social distancing measures, to just 15 minutes.

With some legislation featuring dozens of amendments, that’s a lot more time for MPs to spend standing up for their constituents, scrutinising legislation and dealing with case work.

The Commons leader insists social distancing will be maintained when virtual proceedings end. But here’s the thing: MPs can already turn up the Commons under the ‘hybrid’ arrangements.

All that ending the ability to vote and speak remotely would do is reduce the number of MPs able to contribute – potentially quite dramatically.

Parliament has shown that it can rapidly innovate in a health crisis. And though not perfect, the Commons authorities (unlike the Lords) have impressed everyone in how smoothly the virtual contributions have gone.

If the reason for shutting down the virtual proceedings is because there’s not enough cheering and jeering behind the PM, this is a travesty.

We should be learning from how Parliament has adapted during this crisis, not stymieing any innovation.

So rather than packing hundreds of people into narrow voting lobbies, the government should keep these ‘hybrid’ proceedings going for the duration of the pandemic – and learn from it.

The Procedure Committee is currently consulting on how the virtual proceedings have been going. The Commons leader should work with them, not against them.

MPs who are ill, pregnant or based hundreds of miles from Westminster should not be cast aside by a rushed return to ‘business as usual’.

Today – fittingly the day of PMQs – opposition parties will attempt to oppose the move to end virtual proceedings.

We have to keep learning these innovations as we come out of the pandemic, so we can build a stronger, more effective parliament that reflects the diversity of the whole UK.

It would be a great shame for Parliament if ministers shut down a good thing – simply because they were afraid it was working too well.