Parliamentary committee conundrum

NEWSPAPERS on July 16 carried reports which said that the chairmen of the parliamentary standing committees on different ministries expressed their grievances at a meeting with Prime Minister and Leader of the House Sheikh Hasina on July 15 at the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban as the ministries did not pay heed to many of their recommendations.
The PM urged the chairmen of the committees to work together with the ministers to avoid misunderstandings and asked them to follow the Constitution and rules of procedure (ROP) of Parliament to run the committees.
Parliamentary standing committees are generally grouped into ministerial committees, such as committee on the commerce ministry, committee on the finance ministry; or finance and audit committees, such as committee on public accounts, committee on estimates; and a number of other committees of standing nature, such as committee on private members' bills and resolutions, committee on government assurances, etc.
Allegations by the chairmen of standing committees on ministries against the ministers, and vice-versa, are not new. During the time of the immediate past BNP-led alliance government, the chairmen of the parliamentary committees on ministries accused the ministries and the ministers concerned for non-cooperation with the committees and non-implementation of their recommendations.
They demanded formulation of clear ROP giving due authority to them to execute their decisions. Such a proposal was reportedly raised this time also.
There is more than one reason for the conflict between the chairmen of committees and the concerned ministers. The chairman of a parliamentary committee wants to exercise power over that ministry through implementation of the recommendations of his committee.
But the minister does not like to see the committee as more than a recommending entity. He does not want that the committee steps into the decision-making and implementation processes of his ministry.
Personality clash between the chairman of a committee and the minister of the concerned ministry also hinders successful functioning of a committee.
Article 76 of the Constitution and rules 246-248 of ROP have laid down the functions of a parliamentary committee on a ministry. They include: (a) examining draft bills and other legislative proposals; (b) reviewing the enforcement of laws and proposing measures for such enforcement; (c) reviewing the works relating to the ministry; (d) inquiring into any activity or irregularity and serious complaints in respect of the ministry; (e) performing any other function assigned to it by Parliament, and making recommendations. The functions, other than the examination of bills, of the standing committees on ministries are termed as "oversight functions."
A committee submits its reports with the findings and recommendations to the House. In a case where the House has not fixed the time for submission of the report, the committee will, unless the House extends time, submit its report within one month from the date of sending the case to it.
Parliamentary committees, including the standing committees on ministries, are thus recommending entities. This establishes the fact that unless accepted by the House, implementation of recommendations made by the parliamentary committees is not obligatory on the ministries and agencies.
Now, let us have a look at the functioning of parliamentary standing committees in some countries having presidential or parliamentary system of government.
In the United States of America, all legislative powers are vested in the Congress, which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. In Congress, all bills are referred to committees before any discussion on their principles.
A standing committee exercises great powers as (i) it may send the bill back to the Chamber concerned with a recommendation that bill be passed; (ii) it may amend the bill and recommend that it be passed as amended; (iii) it may entirely change the original bill except its title and report a new one in its place; (iv) it may report the bill unfavourably and recommend that it need not be passed.
In the British Parliament, every bill, except a money bill, automatically goes to one of the standing committees after the second reading, unless the House resolves that it should go either to the Committee of the whole House or to a select committee.
So, the standing committees in the US Congress and the British Parliament are basically meant for examining bills and making recommendations.
A great similarity exists between the standing committees of the Lok Sabha (House of People) of India and those of Bangladesh Parliament in respect of their powers, functions and conduct of business. The standing committees, including the standing committees on ministries, of Lok Sabha are basically recommending bodies.
It is beyond doubt that parliamentary committees on ministries could be the most effective instruments of parliamentary oversight. But this has not always happened. The Public Administration Reforms Commission, in its report of June, 2000, observed: "The activities of the standing committees are usually confined to review of some routine findings of ministries and other agencies rather than in-depth investigation into budgetary and implementation performance."
The Daily Star's editorial of July 15 suggests that "overseeing should not be of an interventionist kind."
The contention between the committees and the ministries will continue until a solution to the problem regarding implementation of the recommendations of the committees by the ministries is found.
It may be advisable that only those recommendations of the committees that are accepted by the House will be sent to the ministries concerned for implementation. In that case, the committees will be more careful in making recommendations and the ministries will have no option but to implement the relevant recommendations.

M. Abdul Latif Mondal is a former Secretary.
E-mail: [email protected].