Shutting down Westminster due to the coronavirus makes sense – but it’ll be devastating for political journalism

The lifeblood of our trade – nipping in and out of the press gallery, grabbing MPs for a quick word or an expansive lunch, exchanging gossip with colleagues and rivals – would be taken from us, writes Andrew Woodcock

For the government, the absence of MPs from Westminster may, of course, be something of a relief (Getty/iStock)

On the face of it, if the medical experts want to prevent gatherings where coronavirus may be spread, the Palace of Westminster would be one of the best places to start.

With almost 10,000 individuals holding passes to the building and a million visitors a year, the warren of corridors, meeting rooms, restaurants and bars is constantly thronged with people wandering around, and generally spreading around any germs they may be carrying.

To make matters worse, the 650 MPs in the House of Commons are by definition drawn from all quarters of the United Kingdom and return to their constituencies every weekend, in a public health official’s nightmare of potential super-spreading.

And with an average age of those serving in the House of Lords of 70 and peers as old as 94 attending sittings, the Upper Chamber presents a unique workplace packed with precisely those people most vulnerable to Covid-19.

MPs will be acutely aware of the need to set an example to ordinary voters who may be reluctant to practice the “social distancing” recommended by doctors.

The dilemma for Boris Johnson and speaker Lindsay Hoyle, if the advice comes in that Westminster should close, will be how to keep democracy running and avoid the impression that political leaders have abandoned ship.

For the government, the absence of MPs from Westminster may, of course, be something of a relief. Mr Johnson was all too happy to shut down the Commons last autumn so he could get on with his Brexit plans free from possible disruption.

But it hardly seems likely that many MPs would be satisfied with debating at a distance. And who could deliver a stirring speech by video call, uncertain whether your listeners were hanging on your every word or popping off to get a cup of tea?

For journalists, the lifeblood of our trade – nipping in and out of the press gallery, grabbing MPs for a quick word or an expansive lunch, exchanging gossip with colleagues and rivals – would be taken from us.

Of course, all involved would do what they could to continue to hold the government to account, but it’s difficult to believe that the country would get anything other than an anaemic, insubstantial form of democracy as long as the doors to Westminster were shut.

Yours,

Andrew Woodcock

Political editor