If a global pandemic that has reshaped Britain can’t drag parliament into the 21st century, what will?

Parliament is an old and slow beast; it is stuck in its ways and, even when it does decide to change, it usually does so at a glacial pace. Well, most of the time. When the pandemic hit last year, online proceedings were set in place practically overnight, to everyone’s surprise.

For the past year and a half, MPs have been debating and voting on our laws both on Zoom and in person. Though some keen parliamentarians returned to Westminster the moment they were able to, others have barely set a foot in SW1 since March 2020.

The hybrid parliament, as it became known, was one of the few silver linings of the pandemic, as it showed that the Palace of Westminster could be dragged into the 21st century after all.

It is especially frustrating, then, that things have now squarely gone back to normal. As of yesterday, MPs are now required to be in the Chamber of the House of Commons if they want to participate in a debate.

The move has been criticised by MPs from all parties, 33 of whom signed an open letter to leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg.

“The hybrid parliament has shown it is possible to accommodate MPs’ need for more modern ways of working and permit the full participation of MPs who may not always be able to be physically present on the parliamentary estate but would nonetheless still want to participate,” they argued.

This could include disabled MPs or those with caring commitments. Indeed, during the first wave of the pandemic, female MPs were much more likely than male MPs to use virtual participation and more than half of women MPs took advantage of proxy voting, due to Covid-19 reasons, including caring responsibilities.

Elsewhere, parliamentary rules have actually managed to become stricter than they were before the pandemic. As he welcomed back MPs to the estate, speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle told them to smarten up if they wanted to appear in the chamber.

More specifically: “Jeans, chinos, sportswear or any other casual trousers are not appropriate. T-shirts and sleeveless tops are not business attire. Smart/business shoes are expected to be worn. Casual shoes and trainers are not appropriate. Men are encouraged to wear a tie, and jackets must be worn.”

The move is a departure from the Bercow era, who’d stated that business clothing in the chamber was more of a suggestion than a straightforward rule. It is also a regressive one. Few good things came out of Jared O’Mara’s time in the Commons, but his openness about his disability had led to a rule change on whether male MPs had to wear ties in the chamber.

In a nutshell, parliament is now back to square one. For a while, it had managed to build a system that was more welcoming, more accessible and better suited to the real lives of real people, but it ultimately decided to give up on all of it.

Of course, Westminster works best when most interactions take place in person; I should know, I wrote an entire book on that very topic a few years ago. But that does not mean it should forget about the people who would be better suited to a more flexible parliamentary life.

From new parents to people with health conditions or, those attending to urgent matters in the constituency, there are many reasons why MPs may not want to be physically tied to SW1. Similarly, there are worse things in the world than MPs being allowed to intervene in debates without being dressed in a very specific way.

We often wonder why politics only attracts a certain type of people, but few efforts are ever made to ensure that politics looks like it could be for everyone. The pandemic has made hundreds of millions across the world reconsider their relationship with work, home, the office and life in general.

In this context, parliament refusing to learn any lessons from the past 18 months feels like a shame. It is also a worry, for if that blasted killer virus couldn’t drag these institutions into the 21st century, what will?