THE SNP's Westminster leader has called for a "virtual parliament" so that the government can be held to account over its handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
Ian Blackford has has said he wants Parliament to return before April 21, as announced by the Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Mr Blackford said the virtual parliament should be set up so that MPs do not have to travel to London.
He said he understood that the capability for MPs to vote remotely has been worked on in the last few days.
"They should not be exposing their constituents and other staff members to risk," he said. "We need to use the technology that is available.
"I can have a perfectly agreeable discussion on Skype. MPs can hold the government to account from their home. "And we need to get away from the view that everyone has to be in London at this time of crisis. No, we don't. We can actually be in our constituencies.
"When we are encouraging other people to work from home, it would be slightly disingenuous if Parliamentarians weren't doing what they are asking other people to do."
It comes as ministers resisted demands for an emergency recall of Parliament to respond to urgent questions about the coronavirus outbreak.
Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg has insisted MPs will return on April 21, the date agreed before the Easter recess.
MPs approved the Easter adjournment timings on March 25, minutes before the chamber rose, at a time when the increasing impact of Covid-19 was clear.
The motion was unopposed although several concerns were raised by opposition parties about their inability to scrutinise major decisions in this four-week period.
Mr Blackford told Sky News:"It is important that we hold government to account. This is a crisis and of course we want to make sure that all of us, where we can work together to make sure we get through this health emergency. "But there are legitimate questions that need to be put to the government.
"I think it is right that we have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister or his stand-in, and question other ministers.
"The clock is ticking and we need to make sure that we support everybody in our communities, everyone has cash in their pockets... there are many issues where we have been contacted by our constituents and we need that ability to hold the government to account.
"There is a perfect opportunity to do that this week, to do it on the basis of a virtual Parliament. None of us should be travelling to London, we should be doing that from our contituencies.
"Let's get the system up and running, and let's do the job we are supposed to be doing, and that's holding this government to account."
Meanwhile, constitutional experts said the Commons should return in an almost entirely "virtual" form with extensive opportunities for MPs to question ministers about the Government's coronavirus response.
They suggested that lower priority parliamentary business should be sidelined to increase the ability of MPs to hold Boris Johnson and his Government to account.
Professor Meg Russell, from University College London, and Dr Ruth Fox, from the Hansard Society think- tank, said any changes must be temporary and should not be used to shift power away from Parliament to the Government.
They stressed that "as far as possible" MPs should stay away from Westminster "in the interests of safety and to set a national example".
The suggestions from Prof Russell and Dr Fox include:
*the introduction of electronic voting;
*the ability to have three or four urgent questions, lasting up to 15 minutes each, every sitting day;
*giving MPs the chance to ask follow-up questions at Prime Minister's Questions;
*an increased frequency in appearances by Mr Johnson or whoever is deputising for him as he recovers from coronavirus, before the Liaison Committee, which is comprised of all the chairmen and women of the various committees and
*the possible introduction of a dedicated Coronavirus Committee.
The two experts acknowledged that a shift to a virtual Parliament could present difficulties for media coverage.
But they argued that "if live broadcast is temporarily compromised, that may be a necessary price to pay - and committees have already experimented with delayed broadcasts and video clips".
Prof Russell said: "There is clearly a widespread desire to get Parliament up and running again and members will be keen to co-operate and will hopefully be flexible, accepting that virtual working will require some compromises.
"But it's really, really important that the Government does not just present members with a fait accompli; there needs to be proper consultation, and any changes should be strictly time-limited, with opportunities for feedback and regular review."
Dr Fox added: "Adversarial party politics rightly takes a back seat in a time of national crisis but Parliament's collective responsibility to hold the executive to account is enduring.
"Extraordinary arrangements are needed if Parliament is to go fully 'virtual'.
"But any new arrangements must ensure fair representation for all members and parties; and the crisis and Parliament's response to it should not become a pretext to shift power even further towards the executive."
Shops across Scotland are closing. Newspaper sales are falling. But we’ve chosen to keep our coverage of the coronavirus crisis free because it’s so important for the people of Scotland to stay informed during this difficult time.
However, producing The Herald's unrivalled analysis, insight and opinion on a daily basis still costs money, and we need your support to sustain our trusted, quality journalism.
To help us get through this, we’re asking readers to take a digital subscription to The Herald. You can sign up now for just £2 for two months.
If you choose to sign up, we’ll offer a faster loading, advert-light experience – and deliver a digital version of the print product to your device every day.
Click here to help The Herald:
Thank you
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel