The sparse benches and sombre tone couldn’t dampen the raw human thrill of the moment. After four cruel weeks, here they were, for the first time, back in the House of Commons, reunited at long last with the precious sound of their own voice.
Yes, parliament is back, not with any kind of bang, very much with a whimper, but we’ll take what we can get.
This wasn’t the full, big screen-enabled, virtual parliament affair. That starts on Wednesday. This was merely the, dare one say, somewhat non-essential debate on introducing the virtual parliament, that apparently had to happen first, even though there was no vote on the matter before it was approved.
Download the new Independent Premium app
Sharing the full story, not just the headlines
As leader of the house, it was Jacob Rees-Mogg’s job to introduce the new arrangements. Only 50 MPs are allowed into the chamber, all sitting two metres apart, which is useful not merely for protecting yourself from the deadly virus, but also in case you’re Jacob Rees-Mogg, and you just fancy a bit of a lie down.
It went on for about 90 minutes, during which time such leading lights as the DUP’s Ian Paisley Junior rose to make clear their view that the new arrangements will make it harder for parliament to scrutinise the government, compared to the normal arrangements. To which Jacob Rees-Mogg pointed out that, in rather more verbose terms, that yes, the normal arrangements are preferable, but these are not normal times.
In an ideal world, you wouldn’t have all of the nation’s MPs living under effective house arrest during a period of unprecedented national and international crisis, but the whole coronavirus thing has led to a fairly significant number of suboptimal outcomes.
It went on like this for some time. It really didn’t need to.
The public, we are told, will be reassured to see parliament back. In some ways, this is true. I remain stunned, and in no small way, quite angry, at how slow it was to shut down last month, and said so on many occasions prior to the inevitable happening.
Large numbers of MPs, like the father of the house, Sir Peter Bottomley, really did say things like, “If we’re not there, people will want to know why.” They spoke and acted as if some kind of blitz spirit were required, to keep calm and carry on, when what they urgently needed to be doing was setting the correct example to the rest of the country, by packing up and going home and waiting it out like everybody else.
But that message has got through now, and the reopening of parliament is certainly the correct course of action. Much, dare one say most, of what goes on in that chamber is decidedly non-crucial to the life of the nation. But government ministers do have to come to the despatch box and account for their actions and face difficult questions.
That could hardly be more urgently required. But at the same time, TV viewing figures are through the roof. Millions of people are trapped in their houses go slowly round the bend. It may possibly be that more of them than normal will take a passing interest in matters in that little, semi-virtual room.
In such circumstances, we must hope that the last question MPs ask themselves before their words leave their gobs for their daily exercise is thus: is it essential?
In most cases, the answer will undoubtedly be negative. But there will be a few positives, for sure, and it will be a welcome relief to see them back.
