This article is mystifying - lots of assertions about how the Commons sitting in person during the coronavirus pandemic will be better, assertions which are at best debatable and at worst palpably untrue... a (long) thread... https://twitter.com/thehouselive/status/1267418522956816384

“One of the advantages of the return to physical proceedings is that the total numbers on the estate will not increase significantly” If it is an advantage not to increase no.s, then why increase them AT ALL? Hybrid sittings keep numbers as small as poss so are more advantageous

“numbers will remain limited in the chamber itself so that its atmosphere remains muted for the time being.” Yes - the Chamber was already operating at a limit of 50 which can’t change. More MPs will be on the estate but no more will be able to participate at any one time.

“What is going to change is the quality of scrutiny.” How, if only 50 MPs can participate at a time? The new plan excludes the up to 120 MPs who could previously have been participating online in what was happening in the Chamber. So fewer MPs will be involved in scrutiny.

“In the chamber frontbenchers will have to keep on their toes as interventions are once again made possible.” Why not look for a technical solution to allowing virtual interventions rather than the sacrifice participation of hundreds of MPs?

“With MPs present in Westminster, rather than scattered hither and thither, voters’ interests will be better represented.” Apart from all the voters in the constituencies of MPs who can’t come to Westminster whose interests won’t now be represented AT ALL in many proceedings.

“Compared to the virtual parliament, the amount of time the House spends debating this primary legislation will increase by two-thirds. The resulting laws will be greatly improved as a result.” This is a highly debatable assertion.

The amount of time available to debate legislation in the virtual Parliament was up to the government. They could already have allowed more time. Even if there is more time the number of votes it is feasible to have will be severely restricted...

... if the House adopts the govts proposa of conga-line voting - it will take MUCH longer to vote, so there will be a great disincentive to MPs pushing amendments to a vote and requiring their colleagues to stand in line for hours. This is great for govt but bad for scrutiny.

“For those MPs with underlying health conditions who have been told to shield or are receiving specific government advice about their health, the Government is working with the House authorities to see how they can continue to contribute to proceedings within the House.”...

... in the meantime these MPs - as many as 250 according to @MattChorley in @timesredbox this morning - are having the opportunity to represent their constituents in lots of types of parliamentary business unilaterally withdrawn for an undefined period...

“The division lobbies are being replaced by a more appropriate alternative devised by the Speaker.” I thought @LindsayHoyle_MP had already devised a more appropriate alternative - with the help of the parliamentary authorities - the remote division process!

“Parliament now needs to... [go] back to work in ways which follow government advice carefully.” The government advice is still to work from home if possible, not stay away from home overnight and to avoid public transport. MPs do not need to be in London to do their jobs...

... so IF MPs actually followed government advice carefully they would not return to Westminster tomorrow and abandon the highly successful experiment in virtual proceedings which they have conducted in recent weeks. ENDS