6 days ago
Parliament needs to function better. That begins with supporting MPs
Written by Ravindra Garimella and Rajas Kolhatkar
We expect our elected representatives to govern wisely, represent their constituents faithfully, and scrutinise laws that affect millions. Parliament is meant to be more than a platform for speeches. It should be a space where serious questions are asked and real answers are found. But how can lawmakers do that without the tools to prepare?
Members of Parliament are expected to reflect the concerns of their constituents, scrutinise legislation, and hold the government accountable. At the same time, they must navigate the demands of party politics, constituency responsibilities, and an increasingly complex policy landscape. Yet, what they are rarely given is structured and institutional research support.
This is not just an operational gap. It reflects the larger question of how well we equip Parliament to perform its core functions. If it is to serve as a serious forum for debate, law-making, and oversight, MPs must be able to access high-quality, non-partisan research — available to all members, not just a few.
Being an MP is more demanding than it appears from the outside. A typical day during a Session includes floor speeches, committee meetings, party strategy briefings and meetings with constituents or interest groups. In the time between sessions, MPs return to their constituencies, where the range of expectations only expands. Alongside all this, they must engage with legislation that is increasingly technical and fast-moving. Bills on data protection, artificial intelligence, defence procurement or climate policy require not only policy literacy but also specialised understanding and real-time analysis.
Most legislators take their responsibilities seriously. However many operate without the kind of support that would allow them to engage with the full complexity of their role. Some rely on interns, others on party researchers or external experts. These arrangements vary widely in quality and availability. They are also unequally distributed — senior MPs or those backed by party infrastructure fare better, while first-time legislators, particularly those from regional or smaller parties, are often left navigating Parliament on their own.
When that happens, debates become symbolic rather than substantive. Without preparation, MPs fall back on generalities. Without scrutiny, bills can pass unread or unchallenged. And when legislation is passed without genuine deliberation, Parliament begins to lose its ability to represent, reason, or restrain.
One initiative that has helped bridge this gap is the Legislative Assistants to Members of Parliament (LAMP) Fellowship, run by PRS Legislative Research. Each year, around 50 young professionals are placed with MPs for the duration of a session year. These Fellows assist with preparing questions, drafting speeches, analysing legislation and researching policy issues.
The impact is visible. With even a single trained researcher, MPs are better able to connect constituency concerns with national policy, participate more meaningfully in debates, and intervene with precision. Parliament becomes more focused, better informed, and more grounded in evidence.
But LAMP, for all its success, is no substitute for institutional reform. It reaches fewer than 10 per cent of MPs. It is externally funded, temporary, and operates outside the formal structure of Parliament. The model works. The scale does not.
Other democracies have already taken this step. In the US, the Congressional Research Service provides confidential, non-partisan policy analysis to all members of Congress. In the UK, the House of Commons Library produces legislative summaries, issue briefings, and bespoke research for MPs. These services are embedded within the legislature, professionally staffed, and publicly funded. They help legislators ask better questions and draft stronger laws.
In India, there have been meaningful steps in this direction. The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariats maintain research divisions, and the Parliament Library remains one of the largest in the world. In recent years, Parliamentary Research and Information Support for Members of Parliament (PRISM) has offered round-the-clock research support during sessions. MPs can call a hotline, request information, or attend bill briefings. These are positive developments and reflect a growing recognition of the need for research support. However, they remain limited and are not designed to provide continuous, personalised, or domain-specific inputs that legislators increasingly require.
This should be housed within the Parliamentary Secretariat, professionally staffed, and accessible to all MPs. Its primary focus should be on embedding research associates directly with MPs and parliamentary committees. These associates could provide tailored support — helping legislators prepare for debates, analyse bills, draft questions, and translate technical material into actionable insights. A smaller central team could complement this work by producing thematic briefs and offering specialised inputs on complex policy issues.
Such a system would do more than improve the quality of debate. It would reduce Parliament's reliance on executive-provided information and strengthen its capacity for oversight. It would also create a viable public service pathway for young professionals with expertise in law, economics, science, or public administration — individuals who are eager to serve but find few institutional routes into Parliament.
Any such reform must be designed with care. The service should be accountable to Parliament, not the executive. Recruitment must be competitive, transparent, and based on expertise. Access should be equal across MPs, regardless of party or seniority. The goal is not to influence outcomes but to equip lawmakers with the information they need to legislate with confidence.
Some may raise concerns about cost or redundancy. But the real cost lies in continuing with the status quo. A parliament that cannot interrogate policy is unlikely to shape effective legislation. It cannot provide meaningful oversight. And it cannot earn the public's trust.
We already have the talent and models to learn from. What remains is the political will to build a system that supports our lawmakers with the seriousness their role and our democracy deserve. Parliament is meant to be where questions lead to answers and where ideas become action. To live up to that promise, we must begin by giving our elected representatives the tools they need to think clearly, speak credibly, and govern wisely.
Ravindra Garimella is former Joint Secretary (Legislation), Lok Sabha Secretariat. Rajas Kolhatkar is a former LAMP Fellow
