House of Lords: Impact of virtual and hybrid sittings in 2020

Edward Scott

The House of Lords changed its procedures in 2020 to enable members to participate remotely. Those procedures remain in place. They were introduced in two stages:

Virtual proceedings (21 April 2020 to 4 June 2020): During this first phase, the House mainly sat virtually using video conferencing. Separate sittings in the chamber took place on a limited basis. Members taking part virtually were unable to vote.
Hybrid proceedings (8 June 2020 to present day): During the second phase, online and physical proceedings were integrated. This period also saw the introduction of online voting. Hybrid grand committee meetings were introduced on 2 September 2020.

How did the changes affect member participation?

Before the introduction of virtual proceedings, member participation in the chamber and in grand committee had been falling since the beginning of the pandemic. For example:

In the last five sitting days before the introduction of virtual proceedings (13–19 March 2020), the average number of members speaking each day was 23 fewer than for the average of the same period in the previous three years.
The average number of spoken contributions each day was 51 fewer than for the same time in the previous three years.

The introduction of virtual proceedings led to the following changes in member participation:

There was an increase in the number of members speaking each day. Between 21 April 2020 and 4 June 2020, the average number speaking each day was 29 more than for the same time in the previous three years.
The average number of spoken contributions each day was 35 fewer than for the same time in the previous three years. This meant that, while more members were speaking, they made fewer contributions on each day on average. This may have been the result of members speaking virtually not being able to make interventions.
The difference in the number of members speaking each day ranged from 27 below to 96 above the three-year average. These figures were for the first day and the last day of virtual proceedings respectively.
The difference in the total number of spoken contributions each day ranged from 94 below to 155 above the three-year average. These figures were also for the first day and the last day of virtual proceedings respectively.

Hybrid proceedings saw an increase in member participation compared to previous years, both in terms of the number of members speaking and the number of spoken contributions:

From 8 June 2020 to the end of the year, the average number of members speaking each day was 32 more than for the same time over the previous three years.
The average number of spoken contributions each day was 84 more than for the same time over the previous three years.
The difference in the number of members speaking each day ranged from 112 above to 51 below the three-year average. These figures were for 19 October 2020 and 18 September 2020 respectively.
The difference in the total number of spoken contributions each day ranged from 245 above to 135 below the three-year average. These figures were for 12 November 2020 and 18 September 2020 respectively.

The following graphs show changes in the total number of members who spoke and total number of spoken contributions made each day.

Figure 1: Number of members speaking each day in 2020 compared with average of the number in 2017, 2018 and 2019 for the same day.

Figure 2: Daily spoken contributions in 2020 compared with average of the number in 2017, 2018 and 2019 for the same day.

Daily spoken contributions in 2020 compared with average of the number in 2017, 2018 and 2019 for the same day

Notes:

The figures for 2020 are compared with the average of the totals from 2019, 2018 and 2017, for the equivalent sitting day. This three-year average is represented by zero on the x axis.
The sitting days are listed numerically to account for the different sitting patterns each year.
Virtual proceedings were introduced on 21 April 2020 (day 42) and hybrid proceedings were introduced on 8 June 2020 (day 60).
In the years when there were fewer sitting days than there were in 2020, the data for 2020 is compared with an average for the rest of the earlier year.

Age and gender of members participating

There were some differences in women’s participation in proceedings during the virtual and hybrid proceedings compared to the previous year:

During virtual proceedings, women made up a slightly higher proportion of those participating when compared with the same period the previous year: 35% compared with 31%. At that point, women made up around 28% of those eligible to attend proceedings.
During hybrid proceedings in 2020, the proportion of those participating who were women was 31%, compared to 29% in 2019. The proportion of those eligible to attend proceedings who were women remained the same as during the virtual proceedings (28%).

The introduction of virtual and hybrid proceedings had no impact on the age of members participating. During virtual and hybrid proceedings in 2020, the average age of those participating was 69. This is the same as the average age of those participating during 2019.

Analysing the data: notes of caution

Any comparison between two periods of House of Lords activity is difficult because of the many variables involved. For example, there are potentially large differences in the types of business taking place and the length of any sittings involved. No adjustment has been made to account for the very different business considered over periods analysed, including the frequency of statements and private notice questions; the relative split between very short interventions and longer contributions; any differences in the length of relevant sittings; or other changes, such as how many members may have served as a deputy speaker.

In addition, the provisional analysis undertaken for this piece only considers spoken contributions recorded in Hansard. It does not take into account other activity members were engaged with during either period, including committee work and/or voting where applicable.

The source data used does not facilitate the accurate assigning of contributions to contributors. This limits the extent to which a gender and age breakdown of the total contribution figures is possible. Due to other limitations with the dataset, the figures cited above should be considered provisional and indicative rather than conclusive.