Why Prime Minister’s Questions should go ahead – but without Jeremy Corbyn

Boris Johnson must be held to account – but the current leader of the opposition doesn’t have to do it himself

It is surprising that Prime Minister’s Questions is going ahead today in what Adam Boulton of Sky News called “the pool of germs that is the House of Commons”. (A virus isn’t a germ but we know what he meant.) Surprising, but right. On balance, it is more important that democracy carries on.

It is essential at a time of national emergency that Boris Johnson’s plan to deal with the coronavirus outbreak is subjected to scrutiny. It is important that journalists ask questions on behalf of the people at what are now daily news conferences, even though that means a large group of people in a single room; but it is even more important that the elected representatives of the people put their questions to the prime minister.

If MPs (or journalists) had asked the right questions of Johnson in January, we might have had more ventilators by now. That they (we) failed to do so does not blunt the principle that the government should be held to account every week and every day of the crisis.

So Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is right to go ahead – and note that it is his decision, not the government’s. But he is also right to close the public gallery in an age when everyone can watch the proceedings on a live video stream.

That does not mean Prime Minister’s Questions should go ahead in this form. Most importantly, Jeremy Corbyn, who is 70, should not be taking part. The government says “we strongly advise” people who are over 70 to “avoid large gatherings, and gatherings in smaller public spaces such as pubs, cinemas, restaurants, theatres, bars, clubs”. Someone who is merely “advised” to do “social distancing”, but who is two months away from his 71st birthday, ought to set an example to the wider public.

What is more, Corbyn is just two weeks away from stepping down as leader of the opposition anyway, and his democratic function can be discharged just as well by a deputy. I can see that it would be wrong in principle to ask one of the leadership candidates to step in, but Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary and shadow first secretary, is available.

My argument is not that Thornberry would be better at it, although she would be. Or that Corbyn is likely to fall short of his democratic duty by injecting too much of a partisan note into his questions – although I do think it is important that the prime minister is pressed on the government’s so far inadequate support for tenants and casual workers. It is that the government’s recommendations on social distancing, especially for older people, should be observed. A limited exception can be made for the principle of democracy – that is, for parliament to be meeting at all – but there is no reason apart from Corbyn’s vanity why an exception should be made for him.

There is also no need for the chamber of the Commons to be full. There are 15 MPs listed on the order paper to ask questions; the speaker has to call, in addition, the leaders of the two largest opposition parties (Labour and the Scottish National Party), and enough extra Conservative MPs to balance government and opposition, but everyone else is there for show and to make a noise.

Let us have less show, less noise, and more serious questions about whether the government really is doing “whatever it takes” to minimise the suffering caused by the pandemic.