Give them free new tyres too? How long should they keep extending the session if disruptions keep happening? 2 hours? More?

The only way to prevent cars interacting with and affecting each other is to have them on the track separately - but some people like to complain that that isn't the type of qualifying session they want to watch, while simultaneously also complaining about the consequences of having them all on the track together…

And nice of you to keep digging the knife into the FIA when they aren't necessarily the ones creating these rules or requesting they be implemented.

the existing rule does not punish non-deliberate session stoppages

And there's a very good reason for that - no rule should.
The basis of any penalty system (and certainly the entire F1/F2/F3 system, bar this one new exception) is that it punishes an action - not a consequence. If other following competitors are inconvenienced, that's just the way it is. Be ahead next time.

while this one would.

Not necessarily, though. Probably not even likely, as the stewards would still be making the decision as to whether it was avoidable/deliberate or not. If they don't determine that it was a deliberate action, they won't apply this penalty either.

It's not completely redundant — the existing rule does not punish non-deliberate session stoppages, like Leclerc's shunt in Monaco, while this one would. But you're right in that it's fairly limited in scope and won't come into play very often.

The IndyCar equivalent of the rule arguably makes more sense — it's certainly less redundant, in that it punishes drivers not only for causing red flags but also local yellows by deleting their best time up to that point if (but only if) the local yellow interrupts another driver's flying lap. As others have mentioned, I see no evidence that this has caused IndyCar drivers to push less, but it does create a healthy incentive for drivers to clear out after an off and avoid impacting other drivers.

This rule just fixes symptoms.
The issue to be solved is that someone stopping on track ruins the option for others to also still run laps and set a time, as under the current rules, it cuts off their time left to run.
So solve that.

Give them all the opportunity to do their laps. Make up for the lost running time. E.g. stop the clock and set it back the time needed for an outlap, or make it a fixed number of laps to run for everyone, for all I care.
That is solving things at the cause, as it makes it utterly pointless to wilfully crash your car in an attempt to hinder others.

The FiA still lives in the era of corporal punishment, while we all know it doesn't work and only causes more harm.

@keithcollantine I'm with you on this. Watching IndyCar, I have never seen drivers go easy to negate the risk of a red flag. This could be linked to the fact that performance is closer (being a spec series) and the more 'snakes and ladders' races making it easier to recover any losses.

Not saying the rule is perfect and without flaws, some have been noted here, but on balance I think it would be a net gain.

Exactly this Coventry Climax. Since it will need to be decided under time pressure - it could well be that a red flag decides who gets into the next part of qualifying - this is certain to create a mess at some point during the season.

Problems may come if a marshal hastily throws a red a red for a situation that only needs a VSC/Yellows. Remember the Tsunoda incident in F1 at Monaco a few years back.

In the case of mechanical failure, we've seen too many examples of the pit wall instructing the driver to "stop the car IMMEDIATELY, turn off the engine, turn off now" type of incidents, which brings out yellows or reds. I remember a time when drivers were expected to try their hardest to coast the car to an escape point so that they didn't disrupt the race. That rarely happens anymore. Maybe modern circuits have less escape points, less cranes to lift cars over the barrier etc, or maybe the limits on engine usage mean teams always try to save the engine, no matter the consequences for the rest of the field. So it could be harsh on a driver if the car fails through no fault of his own, but if it discourages drivers from parking it out on track, I'm all for it.

What if

Great question - and this is why the FIA use a panel of stewards to make such decisions.

There will be controversies.

Exactly as there would be (and was) without this rule.

But that’s typical for FiA rules, they require clarifying, where in my opinion, rules need to be crystal clear to start with, and in how they’re written, instead of open for discussion, depending on judgement and jury votes.

Completely agree. We have so many routes which require clarification or interpretation, to the point where you can't predict how the stewards will decide. This just leads to the impression of inconsistency and accusations of bias.

In this case, I predict that we will see two near identical cases decided differently within the first season.

But that's typical for FiA rules, they require clarifying, where in my opinion, rules need to be crystal clear to start with, and in how they're written, instead of open for discussion, depending on judgement and jury votes.

They now have to discuss whether the driver was solely to blame and whether it was on purpose.
Quite silly, when a driver is, and most certainly during qualifying, trying -on purpose- all he can to be fastest.
So now, were discussing the primary objective of racing?

So here, we hear people saying it will make no difference.
But the point of adding rules should be to solve issues and make a difference, right?
Before the rule, the above discussion was exactly the same, so the rule solves nothing, and instead just adds more controversy. OK, potentially, maybe, but I have no doubts it's just a matter of time before it arises.

I say, if it doesn't make a difference, then why implement it this way?
Find better solutions to deal with the issue.

Why is a situation like that ruining things for other drivers?
Because they are denied the opportunity to run their laps as well.
Solve that.

For example with Checo in Monaco, it looks questionable. But you can not prove it wasn't a genuine mistake of pushing too hard too early unless the driver confesses. Then I look at what Leclerc did one year in Monaco clipping the wall and crashing and I wonder the same. Now more blatant attempts would be Schumacher parking his car and Rosberg doing something similar.
I think Rosberg may have got away with it but Schumacher had his pole position took away.

Long story short, let's see how the rule works in the feeder series and if it has some negative consequences before thinking of applying it to F1. I do worry that drivers will not take as many risks if such a rule came in place and I could see this ruining a title battle down the line.

Agree with S. Well said.

The best way teams can avoid being at increased risk of a car ahead of them creating an incident is to be ahead of them. Run when others aren't, and lay down their best lap first.
But this is always a game of risk vs reward - and teams are all too happy to take that risk until they suffer the negative consequences and feel the need to blame someone else for their own strategic blunders. Enter this rule.

Indycar has some decent rules compared to these F1, F2, F3 series - but this isn't one of them.

Kris, let us analyze what you said.

Scenario I:
"Let’s say a driver currently P3 goes off and gets stuck in the gravel. Red flag, loses P3 and has to rely on their previous time or start at the back of that qualy group."
Result:
The driver gets penalized and he knows why. Every other driver who had his quali compromised by him gets consolation knowing the culprit got penalized.
Conclusion:
GREAT.

Scenario II:
"Same scenario but doesn’t get stuck just trundles through the gravel causing yellow flags. Drivers can’t set a faster time and have to abort laps. Driver who caused it still starts P3."
Result:
The rule doesn't produce any difference. Doesn't make anything worse or better, is fully neutral.
Conclusion:
GOOD.

Your judgment:
"This is a bad idea."
My answer:
WRONG. Your very examples show it is not a bad idea, but a good one.

You supposition:
"We want drivers to push and not settle for their current lap. This just makes it less likely drivers will push as hard."
Answer:
WRONG. We know from IndyCar it's never the case.

The effectiveness of that rule has long been tested. No more testing is needed, we know what it is and how it works.