Business of the House

I should like to make a short business statement following on from the earlier announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Tomorrow’s business remains as previously announced. However, the first item of business on Wednesday 4 November will now be a motion to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020.

This will be followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Agriculture Bill and consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.

The House will then be asked to approve the following regulations: the draft Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; and the draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

The business for Thursday remains unchanged from that previously announced, and I shall also make a further statement announcing future business on Thursday.

I thank the Leader of the House for his business statement. My party, of course, agrees with the business changing in this way. We have just heard the Prime Minister make one of the gravest statements. We are going to enter a lockdown of four weeks, and we are asking our fellow citizens to do something that they have not done before. The Leader of the House and the Prime Minister sometimes talk about “Captain Hindsight”, but was the Leader of the Opposition not Captain Foresight, because he called for a lockdown two weeks earlier? He did so because, as the Leader of the House will know, the number of deaths could be higher than it was in March.

We are asking people to stay at home, and many of our colleagues will be staying at home. The Leader of the House read out a list of legislation. In UK Parliament Week of all weeks, many of our colleagues cannot even represent their constituents. They are excluded from taking part in debates. They are excluded from voting. That is not only bad for their constituents; it is bad for democracy. Worst of all, we all have to line up together to vote. There is one simple way of dealing with that. May I ask him again to think very seriously, in this grave time, about us going back to remote voting? Those who can be here and need to be here will be here, but we must think about the safety of the House staff who have to marshal us into what we hope will be two different queues. I ask him to think very seriously, at this very serious time, about us going back to remote voting and about enabling our colleagues to take part in debates on behalf of their constituents. I am sure he will agree that it is outrageous that they cannot represent their constituents. They must do that. He must look at this immediately, to save lives and livelihoods.

The right hon. Lady is aware that, just before the recess, the House took the decision to extend the current arrangements for virtual participation to March 2021, to ensure that people who cannot be here for a range of reasons can vote by proxy and participate in interrogative proceedings. I therefore think it is inaccurate to say that there are Members who cannot vote, because proxy arrangements have been put in place that allow them to do so. Those arrangements were agreed without either debate or Division, so they had consensus across the House. If there were to be any changes to our voting system, they should be introduced through consensus. As the right hon. Lady knows, I am looking at the option of expanding proxy voting to make it available to all Members of the House, regardless of whether or not they need to be away from the parliamentary estate. I hope to bring forward a motion to that effect soon, which the House will have an opportunity to agree.

It is important that Members are here and that the business of the House carries on. Why is that? We have to ensure that these new coronavirus regulations—some of the tightest restrictions on the freedoms of the people of this country ever introduced—are properly debated and that the Government are held to account. We have to ensure that constituency issues can be raised freely, fairly and clearly by hon. and right hon. Members. We have to ensure that the transition period legislation is introduced and passed into law by 31 December. It is crucial that we are able to do those things.

We found during the fully hybrid proceedings that we were not able to carry on with the full range of activities. I am glad to say that Westminster Hall has returned. We are operating a full schedule of business, so that democracy is allowed to flourish. I think the right hon. Lady underestimates the need for democratic accountability. Being present in this House is as important as any other essential service.

May I ask the Leader of the House to confirm—forgive me if I missed this—that the debate on the second lockdown on Wednesday will be a full day’s debate? I do not think that 90 minutes would really do it justice. In his statement earlier—in answer, I think, to the question from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—the Prime Minister said that all the scientific information that underpins the decisions that the House is being asked to take would be published. May I ask the Leader of the House: by when will that information be published so that we can make a proper decision on Wednesday?

The motion on Wednesday will be a motion under an Act, and it will be a 90-minute debate. I understand my right hon. Friend’s pressing for further time for debate and I would normally be very sympathetic to it, but immediately after I have finished, there is a day’s debate on the situation relating to covid, the Prime Minister has just answered questions for two hours, and on the Thursday before we went into recess there was a full day’s debate on the coronavirus. I therefore think that the time for debate has been as ample as it can be considering the pressures of business. One of the problems is that there is never enough time to debate all that one would wish to debate, but under the circumstances it is right to follow the normal proceedings of this House. I am sure that if a commitment has been given to publish information, it will be published in a timely way.

The measures to be debated on Wednesday will be for England only and it is not for Scottish MPs to determine what restrictions the people of England should suffer, but I do hope that the Leader of the House will understand the real anger and frustration that the people in Scotland will feel when they look at what is happening. For months we have asked for an extension of the furlough scheme and for months we have been told no, but now that stricter measures are thought necessary in England, furlough is to be extended across the UK. Despite repeated questioning earlier, the Prime Minister was ambiguous about whether furlough would now be available to support measures undertaken by the devolved national Governments if such measures were not felt necessary in England. As it stands, we must therefore assume that if the measures proposed for England are discontinued on 2 December, furlough support will be ended in Scotland too—even if businesses there are still mandated to close. That is not acceptable and it means that we need an urgent debate on the inadequacy of the devolved settlement when it comes to dealing with this matter, and on the need for greater policy and fiscal competence to be given to the Scottish Parliament.

With England in lockdown and people being told by the Government to work from home if they can, I, too, ask the Government to lead by example and now introduce procedures to allow virtual participation in debates and electronic voting. Most people will find it difficult to understand why MPs are being encouraged physically to travel across the country and gather in one place when they do not need to do so. Certainly, representing our constituents is essential, but we do not need to be here to do that. The Leader of the House knows well that the technology exists to allow Members to fulfil their duties while working remotely. If this second lockdown is not sufficient, what will it take for him to authorise switching those systems on?

Well, it is very fortunate that we were able to hear the hon. Gentleman in full this time; the last time that he appeared, the technology did not work and we lost his dulcet tones momentarily. It is also worth reminding hon. and right hon. Members that the other place lost its remote voting system, and that hindered the progress of business. It is important that just as hospitals and schools provide essential services in health and education, so Parliament is performing its essential constitutional role of scrutinising the work of the Government, debating key issues, and, above all, making and changing legislation. Our role has been a vital one throughout this year and continues to be so throughout this month—a time when the House is holding the Government to account for their approach to tackling the widespread impact of coronavirus, legislating to shape the nation’s response to the pandemic and legislating in order for our country to be ready for the end of the transition period. Now is not the time to hinder the ability of MPs to scrutinise Ministers and legislation, but that is exactly what would happen if we were to follow the hon. Member’s suggestion of a full return to hybrid proceedings and ending elements of our business entirely. I therefore continue to say that we have our duty to do, and our duty is to be here, to hold the Government to account, and to legislate for the needs of our nation.

With regard to the hon. Member’s earlier point, I have referred him week in, week out to the many billions of pounds and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been protected in Scotland thanks to the United Kingdom taxpayer. It is unquestionably the case that the strength of the United Kingdom has allowed all parts of that United Kingdom to cope with the pandemic. That would have been harder to do without that support and without that unity. It seems to me sometimes that the Scottish nationalists want devolution when it suits them, but that when there are bills to be paid, they want somebody else to pick up the bill.

Can I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that we have adequate time to debate the consequences of this new lockdown for those people who for many months have hardly seen their relatives in residential care? This is one of the most painful aspects of the covid emergency, particularly for people whose capacity is impaired by dementia or learning disabilities. It is hugely painful for them that their relatives are not allowed to visit them. We are apparently allowed to exercise with one other individual outdoors, so is there any way in which that could be extended to enable people to see their relatives in care homes, albeit in an outdoor setting?

I have the greatest sympathy with what my right hon. Friend is saying. I have referred in this House before to a constituent of mine who wrote to me about going to see a parent with dementia and having to do so from the other side of a window, which was difficult and upsetting. For people in these circumstances, it is really tragic that the coronavirus has made it so difficult for families to be together. In terms of time for debate, there is a debate immediately after this, and I hope that my right hon Friend will be speaking in it and raising this point, because it is one of such great importance.

The Government’s advice to clinically extremely vulnerable people is to stay away from their workplaces and work from home where possible. Will the Leader of the House commit to setting a good example and allow Members such as myself to participate in debates and votes remotely, as we could at the start of the first lockdown? I know he is reluctant to do that, but as the Prime Minister has said, we must make sacrifices to save lives. This is not just about keeping MPs safe; we must also consider everyone who works on the parliamentary estate.

The hon. Lady has the opportunity to vote by proxy, and her vote can therefore be recorded. She also has the opportunity, as she has just shown, to participate in interrogative proceedings. As for debates, the whole point of a debate is that there is a back and forth, and that requires interventions. It is not possible to do that remotely, and I must therefore refer her to the answers I have already given.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response to the letter I sent on behalf of the Liaison Committee concerning what might change as tighter restrictions were applied. His letter arrived before the Government’s announcement. Is there anything in it that would change as a consequence of the announcement?

As I have referred to the letter, I think that a copy must now be put in the Library, if it has not been already, in accordance with the guidance offered by “Erskine May”. The letter is, I think, an answer to my hon. Friend’s earlier letter. If he wishes to write to me again, he will get a further reply.

Can I urge the Leader of the House to provide a specific debate on dementia, for two reasons? First, we saw in the last couple of days the revelation that Sir Bobby Charlton is, sadly, now suffering from dementia. That means that half the team that started in 1966 have now been diagnosed with dementia, and several have died with it. It is about time, therefore, that the football authorities in this country and overseas took the dangers of playing football and concussion seriously, because otherwise we will be letting down a whole generation of footballers who need proper support.

Secondly, as I understand it, there is now a nine-month waiting list in the Court of Protection, which means that, this year, many families whose relatives have been diagnosed with dementia will simply not be able to go to court to sort out their loved ones’ financial and health arrangements—they are simply waiting months and months and months to be able to get things sorted. That adds phenomenally to families’ anxiety and depression, so can we please have a debate on dementia—not as part of covid, but just on dementia?