Dr. David Kenny:

Absolutely, I believe there was legal advice suggesting that this would be problematic. I can see entirely why it would be seen as a risk that would have been hard to take. However, if a sitting of the House involved a vote of consequence or a motion or the passage of an Act and it had been done in that form toward the beginning of the pandemic, it could have been requested by the President to refer that to the Supreme Court for resolution of any constitutional doubts. If that had been done, we would now have a definitive answer and the Houses, potentially, could be sitting remotely in full and committees could be operating remotely in full. We believe there is too much doubt about that question to simply say that it is resolved and it cannot be done. Obviously, it is entirely up to the Houses and whether they wish to pursue that course. We believe it would be worth considering.