Concerned over the ”decline in productivity of Parliament due to disruption of sittings,” an Akali Dal member, Mr Naresh Gujral, today introduced in the Rajya Sabha a private member’s Bill providing that both Houses of Parliament have four sessions in a year, in place of the existing three, running for not less than a total of 100 days.

The Bill titled “The Parliament (Enhancement of Productivity) Bill, 2017,” says the additional Special Session shall be of minimum 15 days, and should deliberate on at least two most urgent matters of public importance, and no other business, including government legislative business, shall be conducted.

To compensate for the number of hours “unutilised” due to disruptions, the Bill proposes extending each session by as many hours at the sitting” as were adjourned due to disruptions. Explaining this, the Bill says a “productive” day in Parliament shall be of at least seven hours. The number of adjourned hours can be converted into the additional days for which the Houses should sit, after adjusting the hours when the Houses sit beyond seven hours.

Normally, the Bill says, the Government “overshadows” the selection of the topics for discussion in Parliament. To avoid logjams and to prevent total washout of sessions, the Bill suggests that the Opposition should also get “equal and adequate voice in Parliament”.

The Bill suggests that the agenda for the Special Session may be decided by all political parties represented in each House of Parliament, and each party can submit at least two matters of intended discussion for the session to the Business Advisory Committee (BAC).

“The parties may also seek suggestions from public to decide the subject matter for discussion,” the Bill says. The BAC shall allocate “at least half of the total speaking time to the members of the non-ruling parties, irrespective of the strength of the parties in the House,” the Bill says.

Since the Bill advocates adding one more session of Parliament each year, its Financial Memorandum says “the Bill, if enacted, would involve expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India,” and estimates it to be Rs 120 crores every year.

Defining “disruption,” the Bill says it means shouting of slogans, coming to the well of the House, and such other action as may be specified by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman.

Explaining the Objects and Reasons of the Bill, Mr Gujral says in the Bill that Parliament used to sit for 120 days in the Fifties. Over decades, the number of days got reduced to 70 to 80 days. The disruptions not only delayed the decision-making but are making people lose “faith in the relevance of the supreme law-making institution”.

Reflecting deep concern and conviction of MPs, the private member Bills are non-official legislative proposals on important issues, and they rarely get approved by Parliament, despite some historic exceptions. The Bills, discussed over the week-end on Fridays, generate lively debates, but are withdrawn in the end by their movers on assurances that the Government would keep their sentiments in view while proceeding on the issue in future.