Introduction

The coronavirus pandemic created immense challenges for political institutions. They were required to devise and implement policy responses. The health emergency also created practical difficulties for their day-to-day operations, as it did for nearly everyone else in society. Political business involves people coming together, and the social distancing measures introduced during the pandemic made doing so difficult. This challenge was particularly problematic from the point of view of Parliament. Its focus is upon a gathering in two chambers – the Commons and the Lords – of sometimes hundreds of people; as well as meeting in committees, in which witnesses from outside Parliament might take part. Members of the public are also allowed to visit the parliamentary buildings and view their proceedings. For Parliament to stop functioning during an emergency would send out a negative signal to the public. It would also mean that the central constitutional means by which the UK government was held to account on behalf of the people would cease to function – a democratic problem. But how could Parliament carry on working, if it was going to abide by the same regulations that it had helped apply to everybody else, and if it was going to protect the wellbeing of members and staff?

From March 2020, the solution arrived at, with the assistance of Internet technology, was the ‘virtual Parliament’. Various parliamentary activities were scaled down, but the basic functions such as select committee meetings, questions to ministers, debates, speeches and voting on legislation, were maintained. A restricted number of parliamentarians were still allowed to attend: the number of MPs allowed in the House of Commons chamber, for instance, was limited to 50. But others who chose not to attend, or were unable to do so for health reason, were able to take part remotely, in what was known as a ‘hybrid proceeding’. An important event came on 12 May 2020 when the first remote ‘division’ or vote in the House of Commons took place. From June, there was a shift to more attendance, with social distancing, but MP were still able to take part remotely. Online participation continued into 2021.

Diving Deeper

Practical difficulties

Any change in practices involving technology brings with it practical problems. They apply particularly in the case of an ancient institution with complex procedures such as the UK Parliament. Decisions had to be made about which application to use, and ensuring it met the necessary specifications. The favoured package was Zoom. A basic problem was that participants might have a poor connection, preventing them from taking part when they were scheduled to; and sometimes breaking off part way through their contribution. Parliamentarians taking part might be confused by the new procedures and technology. Free-flowing debate was not possible. While ministers could be asked questions, interjections or follow-up responses by those questioning them, that could normally be permitted, were not allowed.

Points of principle

An argument in favour of the ‘virtual Parliament’ was that it was essential that Parliament should continue functioning during a time of emergency, while safeguarding the health of people working in Parliament. The need for Parliament to perform its role in scrutinising the government and hold it to account actually heightened because of the extra powers that ministers had taken on to help them tackle the emergency (for the functions of the UK government, see: chapter 3). Without arrangements for remote participation, Parliament might not be able to function at all, or else only a small number of parliamentarians should be able to take part. It was an important principle that any parliamentarian should be able to participate in parliamentary proceedings. It was also vital, advocates of the ‘virtual Parliament’ held, that Parliament – as a focus for the whole country, that Parliament set an example for everyone, abiding by social distancing regulations, but also showing that it was possible to continue operating at the same time.

Some were less comfortable with the ‘virtual Parliament’ concept, resisting it or seeking to bring it to an end as soon as possible. Often they took a traditionalist view, holding that actual physical attendance was a practice as old as Parliament itself and should not be broken with. They felt that the quality of debate was negatively impacted upon. Speeches lacked the same impact when not made in the same room as audience members. The need to provide all participants, whether remote or in person, with the same level of access meant lowering the overall potential for participation to what was possible to those accessing proceedings via the Internet. A reason for dislike of the ‘virtual Parliament’ was that it took place at a time when Parliament should set an example by continuing to meet as usual at a time of emergency, and not allow the pandemic to disrupt it.

Historic significance

Whether or not you agree with those who disliked the ‘virtual Parliament’ for traditional reasons, they were right to see this initiative as an historic occasion. Perhaps the most fundamental nature of Parliament in its historic origin was that it was a gathering of people in a specific place. The ‘virtual Parliament’ challenged that principle since it allowed people to take part in its proceedings (Blick, 2021: 81). It also helped demonstrate how important the Internet had become to society in general, and to politics in particular. In some respects, online communications had acquired a negative reputation in the years leading up to the pandemic. It was associated, for instance, with the spread dis- and misinformation or ‘fake news’ (see: chapter 9). But during the coronavirus emergency, some positive aspects of the Internet, as a means of sustaining human communications, became apparent. It helped the political system to continue functioning. As well as being used for the ‘virtual Parliament’, for instance, Cabinet meetings took place online, as did court proceedings. But the negative aspects of the Internet also continued to manifest themselves (for the Cabinet, see: chapter 2; for the legal system, see: chapter 5). The so-called ‘infodemic’ was a label employed to describe the widespread dissemination of malicious falsehoods about the pandemic.

Markers for the future

The ‘virtual Parliament’ was important when it took place, but what long-term difference would it make? Shortly before it began, the parliamentary expert, Hannah White, speculated that it might be a means of causing Parliament to experiment in ways it might not otherwise have done. Parliament would wish to cease some activities, such as remote participation in debates. But it might find others of long term value, including allowing for online contributions to select committee business (White, 2020). In the context of the ‘unwritten’ or ‘uncodified’ UK constitution, precedents – actual practice that can be pointed to – can be important to achieving lasting change (see: chapter 1). The ‘virtual Parliament’ provided some new precedents. The ‘virtual Parliament’ experience encouraged a debate about the nature of participation in the institution by its members. For instance, MPs representing constituencies that were hundreds of miles from London suggested that methods developed during the pandemic could be used permanently to reduce the amount of time they had to spend away. There was discussion of whether Parliament could permanently adopt electronic voting, rather than requiring MPs to vote in person by physically walking through a passageway.

Summary

Coronavirus created challenges for the continued functioning of Parliament.

At the same time, it was important that Parliament continued to operate during the emergency. It was important that it was seen to continue to function in some form; and that, on behalf of the public, it continued to hold government to account for its pandemic response.

The ‘virtual Parliament’ utilised Internet technology to ensure that Parliament could maintain basic functions, including select committee activities, questioning ministers, debating and voting on legislation.

The ‘virtual Parliament’ could not operate as well as a normal Parliament could in more regular times, but it enabled some degree of functioning. It opened up important debates about the fundamental nature of Parliament and how it might function in future.

Test your knowledge