THE UK Government's plans to end the virtual parliament will lock out up to 250 MPs and disenfranchise around 17.5 million voters, new analysis suggests.
MPs will return to Westminster today after Tory ministers dropped virtual proceedings, despite concerns shielding politicians will be unable to attend.
A hybrid system enabling parliamentarians to either attend the Commons in person or contribute to proceedings via Zoom has been in place since the end of April.
But Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg announced last month that the Government was pushing ahead with plans for a physical-only Commons after the Whitsun recess, which ends on June 2. He has tabled a motion preventing the resumption of virtual voting that allowed MPs to have their say from afar during the pandemic.
If the House approves the plan today, MPs may have to form kilometre-long queues in order to obey social distancing rules when voting – despite the Lords planning a move online.
Rees-Mogg argued that democracy would "once again flourish", having been "curtailed under the hybrid halfway house" which allowed MPs to take part in debates and vote remotely while up to 50 were in the chamber.
But the proposal has faced fierce criticism – with the Electoral Reform Society warning it poses a "real threat for democratic representation and political equality" if extremely vulnerable MPs are unable to vote.
And Jo Maugham QC of the Good Law Project says the move could be disastrous for UK-wide representation.
In a detailed Twitter thread, he explains the implications of the Tory proposals. “The consequences of the motion passing will be profound … if it passes as many as 250 MPs will be unable to attend Parliament and vote; as many as 17.5 million voters will go without representation.”
Read his thread in full here.
Tomorrow MPs, or some of them anyway, will vote on whether to disenfranchise up to 17.5 million voters. THREAD
— Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) June 1, 2020
READ MORE: This MP's response to scrapping virtual parliament has taken Twitter by storm
Labour and opposition parties have tabled an amendment to the motion seeking to retain remote voting.
Shadow leader of the Commons Valerie Vaz warned Rees-Mogg's "discriminatory proposals" would result in "two classes of MPs".
"Those who can physically attend and those unable to owing to the Government's own rules, including having an underlying health condition or shielding responsibilities.
"The abolition of the hybrid remote Parliament which allowed all MPs to take part regardless of their personal circumstances is discriminatory and would not be acceptable in any other workplace.
"We remain ready to work with the Government and all parties to reach a consensus that would allow all MPs to participate on an equal basis."
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has said that – if MPs need to vote today – they will do so by filing past the left side of the despatch box table to vote Aye, and to the right side to vote No. They will pause at the despatch box to state their name and voting intention.
Votes on subsequent days will be carried out under the arrangements agreed by MPs today.
Hoyle said it was "clear" that the House cannot conduct divisions safely via the usual voting lobbies, as it would be "difficult to maintain social distancing".
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel