Following the stark division between the two main political parties on the way forward for the country’s energy supply, this week’s news that both parties’ leaders are in favour of making Members of Parliament more accountable in terms of their parliamentary appearances is most welcome.

It was the Opposition leader who fired the first shot on Monday when he proposed linking MPs’ House salaries to their parliamentary attendance.  And he is quite right.  Our MPs are in effect part-time employees of the state and any part-time employee working any job for three and a half hours, three evenings a week, say at a restaurant for argument’s sake, would certainly not be paid for any time not spent on the job.

And the fact that the Prime Minister has voiced his agreement, or rather not voiced his disagreement, with the proposal also means that irrespective of who is elected come 9 March, this long-needed development stands a very good chance of becoming reality in the foreseeable future.

It is true that MPs, perhaps some more than others, spend an awful lot of time preparing their interventions and some also engulfed with attending to committee and other parliamentary work. 

But it must be said that this is part of the terrain an MP has to deal with.  But then again, being an MP is not a job that one enters for the money, at least it is certainly hoped that is not the case, and when it comes to the culmination of committee and other parliamentary work, the plenary sessions, all MPs that are not otherwise engaged in official business should be expected to be present if not to contribute, then to at least follow proceedings.

But despite the fact that this should be a pretty obvious element of an MP’s job description, not all MPs seem to believe so.  And as such perhaps simply docking the pay of MPs who play hooky, or paying them per sitting as has been suggested by the Opposition leader, is not enough. 

After all, there are a number of MPs who could afford to negate the entire honoraria they are paid as MPs and in fact, there is a very reasonable argument that habitual offenders should come under some form of discipline or censure at least from their respective parties.

Parliamentary attendance, according to the Opposition’s suggestion, would also be made public online – another excellent idea.  It may seem a little ridiculous to have an attendance sheet drawn up for parliamentarians and the Prime Minister, while saying he did not disagree with the Opposition’s suggestion, actually warned against treating MPs like schoolchildren.

Of course he is right, but as this newspaper has shown in the past, parliamentary attendance in a number of cases has been abysmal and such is the state of affairs that MPs simply must be held to account. 

This newspaper has in the past published research into absences from House sittings by our MPs, and the results do not make for reassuring reading whatsoever.  We will not go into the naming and shaming – or indeed the praising - of individual MPs but suffice it to say that there is a whole lot left to be desired along these lines.

Both party leaders also made a number of other extremely noteworthy suggestions for strengthening Parliament, unfortunately the creation of a full-time Parliament was not one of them, which they will be obliged to honour if and when elected to govern.

Just as the great energy debate that has dominated the first week and a half of this electoral campaign just might, through the conflicting ideas, ensure the best overall solution for the country, so too with the debate over the ways and means of strengthening of Parliament.

And after this last year of parliamentary antic after antic, a strengthening of Parliament will also undoubtedly strengthen the public’s confidence in the House and in the country’s lawmakers themselves.