The uncomfortable truth is that time and time again the UK Parliament finds itself responding faster and more progressively to the once famed family-friendly Scottish Parliament. Pictures of babies in the voting lobby and the first proxy votes cast for women on maternity leave happened in the Palace of Westminster, not Holyrood.

The Scottish Parliament was again asked to rise to the challenge of scrutiny in the face of a global pandemic but took weeks to establish its own Covid committee, following all the old rules. This week saw the first virtual FMQs, with Liam McArthur being beamed into the chamber from Orkney. A landmark moment, but again, weeks after Westminster had done the same. It’s a dark day for devolution when the House of Lords has better embraced technology.

Reluctance to a virtual Parliament comes from the belief that it offers a poorer quality of debate and scrutiny than “the real thing.” Leader of the Commons Jacob Rees Mogg declared this week that the off-the-cuff remarks, the flow of interventions and the “bobbing” of members waiting to be heard was much missed. As if the theatre of politics was what makes good laws and holds the powerful to account.

The New Zealand Parliament has long had a 75% rule in place, where the whips of one party can cast 100% of their party’s vote as long as 75% of its members are present. That allows parties to not just manage caring responsibilities but it lets members focus on constituency work.

Imagine a situation where a big employer goes bust or a landslide takes out an arterial route. Shouldn’t we facilitate a system that allows MSPs to stay in their community and dial in for 15 mins to ask the First Minister a fully informed question rooted in what they’ve seen first hand?

A virtual parliament may have been borne from crisis, but it could be so much more than a sticking plaster. A permanent hybrid system that allows members to be present physically or digitally as their circumstances allow, could do wonders for both equality and the quality of our politics. MSPs could spend more time in their constituencies at key moments when a campaign or issue demands their attention is not in Edinburgh. It also might just make elected office more attractive to under-represented groups, particularly those with caring responsibilities

The criticism of this system is that it puts too much power in the hands of the whips. But that ignores the untrammelled power they have already, often exercised on a whim and informed by baggage and trades.

Keeping MSPs two metres apart at the moment brings the capacity of the chamber down to 79 MSPs. If that sees just 61% of MSPs in the chamber at present, aspiring to 75% in the “new normal” would be a serious improvement. We could make huge leaps towards a progressive Parliament out of this crisis if we’re prepared to rethink what “good” representation actually is.

Kezia Dugdale is the Director of the John Smith Centre at the University of Glasgow