Better to have the question hour

Better to have the question hour

The scrapping of the Question Hour will not quite kill democracy, but it would be better to retain it than dispense with it, the pandemic notwithstanding. It is an opportunity for Parliament to do serve its role of holding the executive to account, as important a task as making laws. Opposition parties are protesting loudly, but many state assemblies are meeting for just a few days. Members of Parliament will be able to raise their concerns in the House and be able to question and corner the government, which is welcome. More to the point, that opportunity should be productively availed of, instead of being wasted.

Question Hour is the first hour of business when members of Parliament ask, through a well-established process, questions about the administrative functioning of ministries. Questions taken up for oral responses are referred to as starred, members are allowed to ask follow-ups. In the Monsoon Session, members will only receive written responses to their questions. The government insists that all parliamentary leaders were consulted, and barring the Trinamool Congress, all parties agreed. Curtailing Question Hour is an effort to reduce the number of officials required to be in Parliament and to squeeze the usual six-hour business day into four hours. Parliamentarians will still have the opportunity to raise matters of importance and seek answers from the government through zero hour (which has been shortened to 30 minutes), debates and short-duration discussions, both of which are decided through mutual agreement at the Business Advisory Committee, comprising leaders of treasury and opposition benches.

MPs should focus on having better debates that will serve the cause of making the government do its duty to the people to fight the pandemic and revive growth.