Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker how many members of the House attended proceedings of the House each sitting day in (1) September, and (2) October; and how many voted in each division in (a) September, and (b) October.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The table below shows the number of members of the House who attended the Chamber and/or Grand Committee for each sitting day in September and October 2021. All attendance figures are provisional for up to three months and may be corrected in that time.
Date of Sitting | Total members attending |
06/09/2021 | 425 (of whom 1 virtual) |
07/09/2021 | 355 (of whom 1 virtual) |
08/09/2021 | 407 (of whom 1 virtual) |
09/09/2021 | 353 (of whom 2 virtual) |
10/09/2021 | 187 (of whom 1 virtual) |
13/09/2021 | 427 (of whom 1 virtual) |
14/09/2021 | 383 (of whom 3 virtual) |
15/09/2021 | 418 (of whom 2 virtual) |
16/09/2021 | 333 (of whom 2 virtual) |
11/10/2021 | 375 (of whom 1 virtual) |
12/10/2021 | 448 (of whom 1 virtual) |
13/10/2021 | 418 (of whom 2 virtual) |
14/10/2021 | 410 (of whom 3 virtual) |
18/10/2021 | 355 (of whom 3 virtual) |
19/10/2021 | 442 (of whom 1 virtual) |
20/10/2021 | 405 (of whom 4 virtual) |
21/10/2021 | 426 (of whom 2 virtual) |
22/10/2021 | 359 (of whom 6 virtual) |
25/10/2021 | 395 (of whom 3 virtual) |
26/10/2021 | 457 (of whom 1 virtual) |
27/10/2021 | 395 (of whom 3 virtual) |
28/10/2021 | 344 (of whom 2 virtual) |
The table below shows the number of members who voted in each division in September and October 2021.
Date of Sitting | Division Subject | Division No. | Votes Cast |
06/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 1 | 388 |
06/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 2 | 375 |
06/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 3 | 340 |
06/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 4 | 188 |
08/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 1 | 384 |
08/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 2 | 366 |
08/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 3 | 331 |
08/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 4 | 296 |
13/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 1 | 370 |
13/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 2 | 226 |
13/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 3 | 366 |
13/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 4 | 331 |
15/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 1 | 387 |
15/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 2 | 382 |
15/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 3 | 360 |
15/09/2021 | Environment Bill | 4 | 306 |
12/10/2021 | Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] | 1 | 379 |
12/10/2021 | Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] | 2 | 305 |
12/10/2021 | Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] | 3 | 277 |
12/10/2021 | Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] | 4 | 270 |
19/10/2021 | Telecommunications (Security) Bill | 1 | 372 |
19/10/2021 | Telecommunications (Security) Bill | 2 | 356 |
19/10/2021 | Telecommunications (Security) Bill | 3 | 328 |
21/10/2021 | Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] | 1 | 310 |
21/10/2021 | Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] | 2 | 316 |
21/10/2021 | Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] | 3 | 310 |
21/10/2021 | Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] | 4 | 316 |
21/10/2021 | Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] | 5 | 242 |
26/10/2021 | Environment Bill | 1 | 321 |
26/10/2021 | Environment Bill | 2 | 412 |
26/10/2021 | Environment Bill | 3 | 395 |
26/10/2021 | Environment Bill | 4 | 379 |
26/10/2021 | Environment Bill | 5 | 273 |
Asked by: Alex Cunningham (Labour - Stockton North)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the participation by child defendants in virtual proceedings during the covid-19 outbreak, what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the (a) needs of those children, including learning and communication needs, are accurately assessed and (b) provisions necessary to ensure their effective participation are in place.
Answered by Victoria Atkins - Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
In deciding whether a live video and audio link is appropriate, and in operating these, we have ensured clear support and guidance are in place. This sets out that courts must have regard to the welfare of the child, must be satisfied that the mode of a hearing is compatible with the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and that the child is able to participate effectively. This is set out in criminal procedure rules and criminal practice directions. Effective use of virtual proceedings is also covered in ‘Good Practice for Remote Hearings’ guidance issued by the Judicial College, in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, as well as guidance by HM Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). The ways in which video technology is used in criminal proceedings are also kept under regular review by HMCTS.
Asked by: Rachael Maskell (Labour (Co-op) - York Central)
Question to the Leader of the House:
To ask the Leader of the House, if he will take steps to ensure that hon. Members will be able to participate in proceedings in a fully socially distanced area of the Chamber in which hon. Members will also be required to wear face coverings after 19 July 2021.
Answered by Jacob Rees-Mogg
On Monday 19 July 2021, the majority of legal restrictions in England were removed and people are now expected to protect themselves and others through informed choice. Guidance on social distancing and mask wearing in the House of Commons are matters for the House authorities and the Commission to agree, rather than the Government and Mr Speaker has written to Members to encourage them to wear a face covering when in the Chamber. Prayer cards to reserve seats have also been reinstated, Erskine May part one, paragraph 6.51 states:
In the Commons no place is allotted to any Member, but by custom the front bench on the right hand of the Chair (called the Treasury bench or government front bench) is appropriated for the members of the administration. The front bench on the opposite side, though other Members occasionally sit there, is reserved by convention for the leading members of the Opposition. It is not uncommon for senior Members who are in the habit of attending in one place to be allowed to occupy it as a matter of courtesy.
Members who have no such claim to a seat must be present at prayers if they wish to secure the right to a particular seat until the rising of the House (Standing Order Nos 7 and 8). Members may leave cards upon seats to indicate that they intend to attend prayers (and so secure seats for the remainder of the sitting). These ‘prayer cards’ are dated and must be obtained personally by the Member who wishes to use them from an attendant who is on duty in the House for that purpose from 8 am until the House meets.
The House has already agreed that the arrangements for proxy voting and virtual participation in the Chamber, Westminster Hall and committees should remain in place until the House rises for the summer recess.
Asked by: Marsha De Cordova (Labour - Battersea)
Question to the Leader of the House:
To ask the Leader of the House, if his office will undertake an equalities assessment on the effect of ending hybrid virtual proceedings in the House.
Answered by Jacob Rees-Mogg
The House should return to physical proceedings as soon as it is safe to do so, as the Government firmly believes constituents are best served by parliamentarians conducting extensive in-person scrutiny. The Government has always been clear that our approach should be in line with the wider road map. The measures, agreed by the House, will take us through to 22 July when the House rises for the Summer recess.
Hybrid measures were agreed by consensus on the basis that they were temporary. The pandemic should not be used as an opportunity to make long term changes to our proceedings. Changes to procedure are ultimately a matter for the House and, once we return to normal, the House may wish to take time to reflect on the last year and review the impact on our proceedings. Should any changes be considered desirable, the House may wish to undertake an equalities assessment as part of its consideration.
Asked by: Vicky Foxcroft (Labour - Lewisham, Deptford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the report by the Justice Committee, The Coroner Service, HC 68, published on 27 May 2021, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the reforms to the coronial system proposed in the 2021 Queen's Speech will enable bereaved families to participate fully in proceedings.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
The Ministry of Justice does not plan to consult on the proposed reforms to the coronial system but the measures will be contained in a forthcoming Bill which will be available to all members of the House. Additionally, three of the proposed reforms have been included in successive Chief Coroner’s Annual Reports to the Lord Chancellor which have been laid in Parliament advising that these changes will improve coroner processes; the fourth reform around virtual courts would bring coroner’s courts in line with mainstream courts and tribunals. Each of these proposed measures would simplify processes in coroner’s courts and therefore help bereaved families to engage with inquest processes in an easier way.
The Government continues to consider its approach towards the means-testing of legal representation for bereaved families attending inquests as part of the Legal Aid Means Test Review, which is due to be published in Autumn 2021.
Asked by: Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to tackle the backlog of cases in (1) courts, and (2) tribunals.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Restoring the ability of courts and tribunals to hear cases, even within the continuing operational constraints presented by the pandemic, is crucial in tackling the increase in outstanding cases. We have allocated over £250m, we have made courts COVID-secure, opened 60 Nightingale courtrooms, and enabled remote hearings in their thousands.
As a result of our actions so far, we are completing cases in the Crown Court at the same level as before the pandemic began. This progress means that increases in outstanding cases caused by COVID have stabilised, and in some areas – like the Magistrates’ Court – the outstanding cases are reducing.
As restrictions ease, we will maximise the system and enable judges to safely hold as many hearings as possible. We will run each Crown Court site to its fullest, with no limit on sitting days this financial year, so more cases can be heard and waiting times can come down. There are also additional sitting days compared to the allocation last year in other jurisdictions.
To go further, we will continue to recruit more judges and staff, continue to make use of efficiencies and technology, and make legislative changes to protect court time. For example, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will allow for more virtual hearings to support the ongoing use of live links and remote hearings (using video and audio technology), underpinning open justice by allowing remote observation of proceedings. We plan to legislate to give the Crown Court new powers to send such cases back to the Magistrates’ Court for trial and for sentencing, where appropriate.
Asked by: Andrew Mitchell (Conservative - Sutton Coldfield)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what representations his Department has made to the Monaco Authorities on the potential conducting of virtual or online proceedings relating to the whistleblower Jonathan Taylor’s case.
Answered by Wendy Morton
As set out in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, or bypass their laws, just as we would not accept similar interference here. The FCDO cannot seek to interfere in Monegasque court processes. Any concerns about the way in which Mr Taylor might be able to give evidence are a matter for the Monegasque legal system and Mr Taylor's lawyers. As part of our consular assistance to British nationals overseas we can raise concerns about individuals on diplomatic channels. I raised Mr Taylor's case with the Monegasque Foreign Secretary on 13 November 2020 to seek assurances that he would be treated fairly. Monaco provided direct assurances to Croatia in January.
Asked by: Dehenna Davison (Conservative - Bishop Auckland)
Question
To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the House of Commons Commission, whether the Commission has considered ways in which hybrid or virtual proceedings in Parliament can (a) reduce the cost of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster and (b) minimise the need for decant during the restoration and renewal programme.
Answered by Charles Walker
The Commission has not made a formal assessment of the potential ways in which hybrid or virtual proceedings in Parliament could reduce the cost of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster or the need for decant whilst the works are underway. Whilst the Commission is keen to ensure that the plans for restoration and renewal, and for decant, represent good value-for-money, it would ultimately be for the House to determine whether to adopt different ways of working during the works to the Palace.
The Procedure Committee is currently considering changes to the procedure and practice of the House since the start of the pandemic, and lessons for any continuing or future use of hybrid and/or virtual proceedings may emerge from that work.
Asked by: Mark Hendrick (Labour (Co-op) - Preston)
Question to the Leader of the House:
To ask the Leader of the House, whether he plans to (a) make an assessment of the effect on the climate of and (b) estimate the savings accruing to the public purse from virtual participation in proceedings by Members of Parliament.
Answered by Jacob Rees-Mogg
No. The Government firmly believes that our constituents are best served when Parliament meets physically to the fullest extent possible. The cost associated with virtual participation is not a matter for the Government but one for the House.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Leader of the House:
To ask the Leader of the House, whether he has requested data from party whips on the number of backbench votes being cast by individual party whips during proxy voting in the House of Commons; whether he has made an assessment of the effect on (a) scrutiny of the Government by backbench hon. Members and (b) the power of whips over voting decisions of backbench hon. Members of (i) continuing with the proxy voting system and (ii) allowing hon. Members to vote remotely in divisions during the January 20221 covid-19 lockdown restrictions; if he will make it his policy to reinstate electronic voting in divisions for the duration of the national lockdown period; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is the Government’s view that the current arrangements for proxy voting are working well and are a better alternative to remote voting. Details of all proxy votes are readily available through the House service to all members and the public. Proxy voting has significantly reduced the overall number of people who are required to vote in person in the division lobbies and it is also flexible as members can choose their own proxy, irrespective of party. This strikes the right balance between ensuring a robust form of physical voting, which is not dependent on technology and individual members’ wifi connections, while ensuring that very few members have to vote in person, thus ensuring safety.
It is vital that members' votes are cast in accordance with their individual will and, as set out in the proxy voting scheme agreed by the House, members who are eligible to vote by proxy must agree with the member nominated as their proxy when the proxy vote will be cast and how it will be exercised. The member designated as a proxy is expected to act in strict accordance with the instruction given by the absent member, ensuring the voting decisions of backbench members are upheld.
The Government has taken a number of actions to ensure that MPs can work from home more readily where possible. Measures are in place in both Houses, including virtual participation in all Chamber proceedings and as we have said throughout the pandemic, the Government continues to keep the approach in Parliament under review.