You thought we’d forgotten about this didn’t you? It has been almost precisely a month since the last ‘The Week in Parliament’. Firstly, we had the changes to working patterns brought about by coronavirus which necessitated my attention being elsewhere to deal with the immediate response to that, and then Parliament disappeared into recess. But both they and I are now back, albeit having both evolved into a new and different, more digital form. So sit back at a socially responsible distance, as we delve back into Westminster.

The big news is that Westminster is now working in an online format, although with an interesting split between the two chambers. The Commons has chosen to work through Zoom, the communications tool that I think we have all become amply familiar with over the last month. The Lords have chosen Microsoft Teams as their software of choice. With most of the problems ironed out (PMQs yesterday enjoyed only one interruption with the absence of one questioner and Peter Bone being cut off in his prime whilst further explaining his question), hopefully as of next week they will back in full functioning.

No specific significant mentions of consultation, so instead I thought we could take a quick venture into theory as we consider whether the coronavirus crisis is likely to affect our politician’s relationships with consultation and engagement going forward. One of the obvious risks with the Coronavirus Act, which we did write about at the time, was that there had been no consultation on its terms, despite the fact that it is one of the most wide-ranging pieces of legislation affecting citizens liberty in British history. It was generally agreed by both politicians and ordinary folks that the legislation was necessary, and therefore it passed swiftly without the usual complaint about engagement that we might have expected, entirely appropriately so. In the devolved administrations, it drew more comment in their debates on the granting of Legislative Consent Motions to support it.

So, is the experience of having to pass a drastic piece of legislation without the usual procedures likely to sharpen politicians’ instincts on ensuring that future legislation is fully and appropriately engaged upon? It’s certainly possible, but rather depends on the philosophy with which we emerge from the age of coronavirus. Does the experience of having being socially isolated from one another lead to an immense outpouring of community spirit and rejoicing that we can now be back together again when the restrictions are lifted? Or do we merely try and forget the period and go back to life as normal? In the case of the latter it will be of course business as usual, in the former, we may see a renewed commitment to the importance of engaging in dialogue in order to shape new legislation and society.

For the moment the politicians have all, as we would expect, come down strongly on the community-oriented side, encouraging us to listen to each other’s needs and help where we can. Whether this love of listening and the community lasts is a matter for time. In the immediate future, we might expect to see a significant upswing in consultation and engagement. The awkward truth is that some degree of social restrictions are likely to be with us for longer than we might hope. The procedure of relaxing restrictions in order to restart the economy is likely to be a slow process, and over that time there is going to be a need for the government to monitor closely the needs of the populace, so as to preserve as much of the previous state of affairs as is possible. For the government, the easiest way of doing this would be a rolling process of engagement designed to shape the programme of relaxation, whilst still giving primacy to the scientific advice. Involving the community to prove that they are a primary concern would be a savvy move for the government to counter any concerns about executive overreach, reduce the susceptibility of a suspicious public to people attempting to arouse tensions between the public and the establishment, and above all, as one of the key features of consultation and engagement, to ensure that better decisions are made.

We must be careful in considering this not to slip down the treacherous path of prophecy. As time goes on, I expect we will see more politicians demanding to see further consultation on restrictions and preservative measures (possibly even as soon as next week in light of the amendments to the current restriction regulations that create new criminal offences by fiat). As Parliament comes back to full, if not quite normal functioning over the next couple of weeks, we will of course be monitoring the situation and seeing what pressures to involve communities and the public emerge, and from which quarters. We will of course keep you in the loop.

I would like to take this opportunity again to wish you and your loved ones the best of health. As always, if you have any questions or would like to discuss anything further, please drop me a line at StephenH@consultationinstitute.org