You are here

My account » A digital democracy? »

2 June 2020

Katy Little, Policy and Public Affairs Assistant, looks at how the move to digital is impacting on the IFoA's enagement with Parliament.  

Katy Little, Policy and Public Affairs Assistant

The UK Parliament is an institution defined by its customs and costumes. From State Opening to the Speaker’s Procession, these grand and glorious, or gaudy (depending on your opinion) traditions, used to be one of the most defining features of our political system. But COVID-19 has stripped away Parliament’s pomp and ceremony, and forced it to face the digital era, arguably much later than it should of.   

The scale of transformation that has been undertaken in the past few weeks to ensure that the UK Parliament could function during lockdown, to at least some working degree, should not be underestimated. Only last year was Parliament grappling with trying to introduce a proxy voting system for MPs. Fast forward twelve months and we can now peer into parliamentarians’ homes and watch them debate, vote, and answer questions, all the while critiquing the literature on display on their bookshelves.

So what has changed in the last couple of months and how is it affecting the IFoA’s public affairs work?

Scheduling

One of the biggest fears was that the move to virtual proceedings would restrict opportunities for parliamentarians to scrutinise Government policy, at a time when policymakers are having to make tough decisions that will fundamentally change the way individuals and business operate on day to day basis, and will no doubt have long lasting consequences. During lockdown the parliamentary schedule was reduced to 3 days a week in both the Commons and the Lords. As a remedy to recuperate lost time, an increase in question time for MPs was introduced and, on the whole, ministerial statements, urgent business and debates have been taking place remotely. Video conferencing members into Parliament has been somewhat successful, bar the occasional interrupted connection, inaudible commentary and pixelated face. And few would be able to recognise the new format for Prime Minister’s Questions for lack of jeers or cheering to be heard from the benches inside the House of Commons.

The move to digital has been, unsurprisingly, somewhat of a distraction for members of both Houses. The IFoA has seen the effects of this, with some stakeholder meetings placed on hold whilst parliamentarians grapple with adjusting to their new normal, all the while, trying to effectively hold the Government to account. 

However, The Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, announced before the Whitsun recess that ‘physical’ proceedings would return on 2 June. Many MPs have raised concerns about the ability for them to adhere to social distancing whilst carrying out their parliamentary duties, especially those who are located in constituencies that involve longer travel times into Westminster. With Parliament still undecided about how it will conduct future business, especially with a hybrid mix of physical versus digital participants there will be some uncertainty about how best to engage with this group of stakeholders in the short term. 

Legislation

One of reasons for wanting to return to physical proceedings is because developing rules and regulations around virtual voting has been more difficult than anticipated. This is one of the most important things that a virtual Parliament needs to get right, and it has raised a number of security and technological concerns from members across the House.

The first remote vote in the Commons took place on 12 May following a general debate on COVID-19, and there has since been votes on the Agriculture and Immigration Bill.  However, teething problems with the new voting system saw the Chancellor accidentally rebel in a vote against the Government. Without a reliable solution to replace the voting lobbies, a number of key pieces of legislation have been placed on pause, including the Pension Schemes Bill which is currently sitting in the House of Lords and, which the IFoA has been keeping a close eye on. The virtual voting is yet to make its way over to the Lords, and with a backlog of legislation forming, more thought needs to be put towards understanding how Parliament will carry out its primary function – passing legislation.  

Select Committees and APPGs

Select Committees are perhaps one aspect of Parliament that are well suited to the digital era. Committees have been utilising the various meeting conference apps to question ministers and civil servants about COVID-19. It has been pointed out that digital meetings could grant access to a more diverse range of stakeholders and witnesses in present and future inquiries, if the additional trip to Westminster is no longer required. Committees also have the added bonus of being able to function during recess which means they have continued to accept evidence and scrutinise policy whilst the MPs and Lords are away.

The IFoA has also seen All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs), which essentially run as informal select committees on specific interest issues, make the swap from meetings usually tucked away in one of the many parliamentary committee rooms to online sessions, with roundtables and calls for evidence starting to reappear.

Consultations

One of the things also to see delays has been government, regulator and other stakeholder consultations as they focus their efforts on delivering a response to the challenges posed by COVID-19. The IFoA responds to consultations where actuarial expertise can inform debate, especially when the proposals will also directly impact on the areas that actuaries work in and/or there are strong public interest issues involved. Below are a list on consultations that the IFoA plan to respond to and their extended deadline dates.

Conclusion

As parliament reconvenes this week to debate the return of in-person voting arrangements, it is hard not to question why the move to digital was not embraced perhaps as well as it should have been. The requirement to turn up to votes will see MPs, who cannot travel either due to health or age, removed from the democratic process. When one also considers the membership of the House of Lords, which is mostly populated by those over 60, it is clear they may be put at risk should they be forced to rush back to Westminster. This is made all the more frustrating when a digital solution has been shown to potentially work, maybe even well, in the future. The transition will also give the parliamentary authorities food for thought, as they keep one eye on the planned renovations to the entire estate, which, when commenced would see members moved to nearby alternative accommodation. With many parliamentarians clearly critical of the new proposals, the question over whether a digital democracy should remain is likely to linger for some time to come.