Q.Proposals for making Parliament more effective: longer working period; compulsory attendance; Speaker empowered to penalise interrupting members. Agree/disagree with each, and effects if accepted.

Each of the three proposals — longer sessions, compulsory attendance, and a stronger Speaker — targets a real, documented problem with how Parliament currently functions, but each also comes with its own limits. …

Parliament should work for a longer period. Agree. The chapter directly notes that sessions of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, and the time devoted to debate within them, have both been declining over the last two decades — one of the very reasons Parliament often cannot give bills the thorough discussion they need. More working days would restore some of that lost time. The effect, though, depends on how the extra time is used: without a genuine willingness among members to engage substantively, longer sessions could simply mean more days lost to the same disruptions.

Attendance should be made compulsory. Agree, with reservations. The chapter specifically identifies absence of quorum and opposition boycotts as problems that strip the House of its ability to control the executive through discussion. Compulsory attendance would directly target this. The effect would likely be an increase in the number of members physically present for debates and votes — but attendance alone does not guarantee participation; a member who is present but disengaged does not add much to the quality of deliberation, and enforcing genuine compulsion on elected representatives raises its own practical and political difficulties. …