|
This
is an IPS Conference, the first activity launched by the
Institute for Parliamentary Studies. The Institute is a
Public Institution created by the Jatiya Sangsad to
provide services to the Members of the Bangladesh
Parliament and, furthermore, to the Bangladeshi society
.This Institute is intended to
be the central core of research, training, documentation
and technical support to the Members of Parliament, as
well as the Secretariat Staff. As the Secretary of the
Parliament Secretariat has explained in the Inauguration
Ceremony, the IPS is being established in collaboration
with a United Nations Development Project in the sector
of Good Governance.
This Conference is the first of a range of
activities of the project, which will be organised with
the aim of strengthening parliamentary democracy.
One of the issues
that have been considered as a priority of the UNDP/Bangladesh
Parliament Project is to strengthen the Parliamentary
Committee System. Therefore, we have begun a process of
analysing, discussing, and searching for the possible
weaknesses. We
have been questioning a number of interested persons in
and outside the House. Many of you, especially the
Committee Chairpersons, Members of the Treasury Bench
and of the Opposition Parties, Women Members of the
Parliament, Senior Officers of the Parliament
Secretariat and experts from very different backgrounds
like Academia, NGO and civil society, have been
questioned by the staff members of the project on
significant issues regarding the Committee System.
We have tried to ask you how you evaluate the
current system and what improvements can be achieved in
your opinion.
Your answers, this Conference, the discussions that we
are having after each presentation, will provide us with
both technical possibilities and juridical options for
an eventual reform process. We will be drafting
proposals to amend, where necessary, the Rules of
Procedure of the Parliament, which regulate the
Committees. These
will be forwarded to the Committee on Rules of Procedure
for their consideration and further action.
Why
Committees? I believe strongly that first, a Parliament
without Committees is not a Parliament. It might be a
Chamber of Representatives, a Legislative Assembly or a
Power of the State, but it will not be a Parliament in
the most modern and complete meaning of the word. And
second, the more developed a Parliamentary Committee
System is, the stronger a Parliament is. The question we
are addressing today is clear: how can we develop and
improve the Bangladesh Committee System? Which model, if
any, should be followed and adapted to the needs of the
Bangladesh House? Does an accurate and perfect Committee
System exist in this world?
These
are difficult questions that need sound answers. It is
the responsibility of the Law Makers, the national
political leaders, to discuss and agree on what is the
better for the Parliamentary System. One fact is very
clear. There
is no perfect Committee System in the world, as much as
there is no perfect Parliament in the world. Perfect
would mean non-perfectible, totally achieved and not
subject to any change. As we see happening every year,
all Parliaments, including the most admired for their
accurate Rules and for their lasting stability and
tradition, change their Rules, amend their Standing
Orders, and even amend the Constitution, if needed. This
means that all Parliaments feel the necessity of
updating their regulations to meet the increasing
requirements of the electorate and of the public
opinion. Let us hope that it is effectively the demand
of the public opinion, and not only of the published
opinion, which leads Parliaments to change their Rules.
There
are excellent Committee Systems in various Parliaments.
The clearest evidence to prove that there is no superior
model of Committee System is the fact that several
Parliaments are highly efficient in their Committee
Systems, yet having very different organisational
structures: different Rules, different number, different
powers, different roles.
But all have the same result of creating a
specialized tool that serves the purpose of transparent
scrutiny of the Government and experienced Law Making.
As there is no superior model, there is no
pattern in one House that all other Parliaments try to
imitate or to import. On the contrary, the reform
process of the Committee Systems seems to be a race with
very balanced runners in presence. As soon as one of
them takes a small advantage, most of the others make
the needed effort to join the one ahead. A series of
parallel progresses have been the path over the two last
decades: as soon as one Parliament has introduced a
major change in its Committee system, and after waiting
a prudential time to see if the new regulation is really
effective, other Parliaments copy and paste this new
improvement in their own Rules of Procedure. Even if not
related to Committee System improvement, I would like to
show in a few examples how this contagious amendment
process crosses the borders of western States. In the
late eighties, the Westminster tradition of the Prime
Minister’s Question Time was a totally unknown
proceeding to the South European Parliaments. It has
nevertheless become a Rule in France, Italy and Spain. I
do not believe anyone would consider now a return to a
system where only Ministers could by directly questioned
by Members on the Floor. The State of the Nation is an
American tradition that brings the House of
Representatives and the Senate together for a
Presidential Statement before the Congress. The European
Parliaments have not only copied the US tradition, but
also adapted it to their own particular Rules. The Head
of the Executive Power will certainly give his/her
statement, but the Chief Whips will then have time to
debate with him or her, and to propose Resolutions to be
voted by the Floor.
What
has become ever more certain is that a strong Committee
System is basic for guaranteeing good democratic
governance and good practices of accountability of the
Government before the Parliament. I would like to come
back to the roots for a better understanding of this
last idea. As Abraham Lincoln in his famous sentence
said, “Democracy means Government of the People, by
the People and for the People”. This classic theory
finds a juridical positive expression in Article 2 of
the French Constitution, or in Article 7,1 of the
Bangladesh Constitution: “All
Powers in the Republic belong to the people, and their
exercise on behalf of the people shall be effected only
under and by the authority of this Constitution.”
Let
us go deeper into these two ways of expressing the same
idea. Government of
the people means an Executive Power established through
a fair, pluralistic and transparent election of a
legitimate Legislative Power. The Members of Parliament
cannot be anything else than fairly elected
representatives of the People. Government by
the People means that these representatives have the
capacity of making the Laws of the country that will be
binding for all citizens and for the other Powers of the
State. The Executive will have to enforce these Laws
when making politics, and the Judiciary will have to
apply these Laws when making justice. Government for
the People means finally that the representatives,
sitting in the Parliament, have the power to scrutinize
the Cabinet. Parliament assures that the Government of
the People runs the country for
the People. The Government is therefore accountable
before the House; the Cabinet is responsible before the
Parliament.
These
last ideas outline the two major constitutional
functions of any Parliament: Law making, being the
Legislative Power, Government oversight, being a
Representative Power. To discharge both duties,
Committees are essential. A Parliament with a weak or
ineffective Committee System can neither participate
seriously in the legislative process, being totally
overwhelmed by the technical and political capacity of
the Executive Power nor effectively control the
Government. In other words, the strength of Committees
is the strength of Parliament. A weak Committee System
creates a situation in which Parliament is a place where
Government, and only Government, has the Legislative
initiative, and has an easy path for the passing of its
Bills. Additionally, a weak Committee System makes
Parliament a place where Government is not tied to
explain and discuss its policies. Parliament has a loose
control over Ministries and Public Corporations, and the
ideas of the Government are not confronted by the
alternative policies proposed by the opposition or the
backbenchers of the Majority.
If
we look at the Houses in the West, we will see that,
whatever their size may be (from 659 MPs in the House of
Commons of the UK or the 577 Deputies in the French
National Assembly to the 100 US or 76 Australian
Senators), they all have a rather small number of
Committees (between 20 and 30).
Belonging to at least one Committee, if not
more, is mandatory for all Members of Parliament except
the Prime Minister.
We
are seeing more and more in the West the models of
specialized Committees, where the stability of
Membership is an asset (in the US, seniority is a highly
appreciated and relevant concept). Committees enjoy
highly professionalised technical and legal advice, as
well as research input. The same Committee deals with
both the oversight of Government in a certain area and
with the draft Bills tabled by the Government in the
same area. We are also seeing a model in which the House
rules itself through a Committee or a set of Committees,
usually very powerful and discrete. Business Committees,
such as in the USA, deal with the sessions and agendas.
In some Western Parliaments, including those in France,
Germany, Spain and Italy, the House has a Board presided
by the Speaker and composed of several Deputy Speakers
and all Chief Whips.
These Boards assume the powers of the Business
Committees.
Rules
of Procedure Committees determine the Parliament’s
internal regulations. House Budget and Administration
Committees direct the Secretariat and arrange facilities
for Members. And finally, Privileges Committees
guarantee that Members enjoy their official powers and
do not breach the Ethical Code of Conduct. The
Superpowers of the Privileges Committees have been
increased in the West. Except in cases of “red
hands” criminal offences committed by a Member, no
Parliamentarian can be tried, prosecuted or arrested
without the permission of the Committee, its report
before the House and the vote of the Floor. Accordingly,
the responsibilities of such Committees are also larger
in respect of controlling the Members’ conduct:
registering their properties and interests, deciding
cases of discipline, misbehavior, abuse of official
facilities, non attendance of official duties, violation
of secrecy or issuance of false statements.
The
latest type of Committees being established in the West
are the so-called Special Committees, Inquiry Committees
or Fact-finding missions.
The Public is well informed about the activities
of these Committees, as the media broadly reflects their
spectacular proceedings. Latest regulations have found a
balance for the setting up of this kind of Committees,
so to make it not too easy for the opposition, nor too
easy to prevent for the treasury bench. A limited
duration, a clear mandate and no interference with the
Judicial Power have been the ultimate requirements
introduced by the Rules regulating these Committees.
The
Committee Chairpersons in the western Parliaments
are powerful MPs, especially in France, the USA and the
UK. As there are few Committees, there are also few
Chairs. In some cases, the Speaker selects Chairs, after
formal or informal consultations with the Chief Whips.
In most of the cases, the Committee Members among
themselves elect the Chairpersons. Chairpersons are
close collaborators of the Speakers, as they constitute
the Chairmen’s Panel, give their advice and
co-ordinate the Committees’ activities with the
sittings of the House. Some space is usually allocated
for the opposition in the Chairs, except in the US,
where the majority of each House is reflected in all
Chairpersons of the Committees. Other Parliaments, like
the Spanish Congress, only give the Opposition the duty
of chairing one or two relevant Committees, like Budget
or Finance, plus any Inquiry Committee: a fact-finding
mission chaired by the Treasury Bench would immediately
be suspected of smooth handling by the Government, whose
supposed irregularity has to be cleared by Parliament.
The
Rules of Procedure of the above-mentioned Parliaments
give also extraordinary powers to the Committee Chairs.
This includes the power to oppose the set up of Select
Committees, if the matter refers to their jurisdiction.
It includes the power to bring draft Bills from
the Floor to the Committee, if it has been introduced
directly before the House, or, bringing the Draft Bill
directly to the whole House, if they agree there is an
urgent need for its approval without in-depth
discussions in their Committee. They have the right to
speak whenever they wish in the House, being accorded
the same privilege as Ministers. Committees have always
the power of examining witnesses on oath, sending for
persons, papers and records, summoning Ministers and
other high officials of the Government and, in the case
of the Privileges Committees, censoring public servants
having disregarded the authority of MPs in the discharge
of their official duties. Chairmen have finally, as has
the Speaker over the whole House, disciplinary powers
over the Committee Members, which go from warnings to
cuts of their allowances or discharging them from the
service of the Committee.
The
Agenda of the Western Parliaments is, in its major part,
decided by the Committees. Except in the case of
legislative discussions on Bills, where Government has
the initiative, Committees will decide which issues pass
to the Floor, including which Private Bills, and which
proposals require a larger forum for discussion than the
Committee itself. The business arising from the
Committees constitutes the large proportion of the
sitting’s Order of the Day, leaving little space in
the Parliament’s agenda for other business.
There
has been a large debate on the type of sessions
Committees should have, whether they should be secret or
public. Almost all Parliaments in the West, with the
exception of the French National Assembly, give the
Committees the capacity to decide at each session if
they will sit closed door or with public and media
attendance. Broadcasting has been another recent issue,
undoubted in the US, but still restricted in Europe.
Broadcastings have to be approved by the Speaker, by the
Business Committee or by a special Committee ad hoc. The
Houses provide the television channels with a Manual of
Editing, so to safeguard the prestige of the
parliamentary institution, or release themselves an
edited image according to this manual.
Committee
Resolutions are, as a general rule, not binding for the
majority of western Governments. This however does not
mean that the Committee decisions are not respected.
Governments are normally obliged to report to the
Committee or to the House on the measures taken to
enforce a resolution arising from any Committee.
And Governments will usually do so, to avoid the
possibility of a stronger resolution arising from the
Parliament as a whole, which would then have a binding
capacity.
There
is a political tension in all Committees of the West
between the Chair and the Committee leader of the
Opposition. This leader is the Shadow Minister of the
subject of the Committee, as well as the Chairperson is
an eventual substitute of the Minister in Charge, being
probably the best specialist of this field after the
Minister in the Ruling party.
Some
brief sentences can summarise the size of Committees’
powers in the West
Ø
No
Bill without Committee
Ø
No
Finance Act without hearing the contributions of all the
sectoral Committees
Ø
All
Government Officials but the Prime Minister are bound to
attend Committee Sessions. This includes Comptroller and
Auditor General and Managers of all Public Corporations.
Ø
All
Executive Officials are accountable before the
Committees
I
am describing the Committee Systems of the richest, more
powerful, longer lasting and more modern Parliaments of
the world. The facilities that these Committees enjoy
for the purpose of discharging their obligations are
accordingly generous. The Committee System in the West
is generally highly computerized, widely assisted and
has a strong technical backing through research.
Committee rooms are spacious.
The Committee calendar is agreed with the Speaker
and published before the end of the year. Minutes of the
meetings are available within 72 hours. Proceedings and
reports are also made available on computer or on hard
copies through a printing unit that works
electronically, providing first verbatim and later
condensed reports. The Committees are in most cases
connected to the Parliament Library and to Universities.
They finally maintain an updated roster of professionals
who can eventually help the Committees with specialised
technical knowledge.
I
would like to insist on the fact that we are describing
modern and stable Parliaments. One of the factors of
stability and professionalism is that MPs are usually
well paid in the west. I will not be shy or naïve in
this aspect. There are sound reasons for this fact. And
professionalism of Members has a lot to do with the
functioning of a Parliament and of its Committees. The
historic evolution of professional parliamentarism
starts in the XIIIth Century, when the first British MPs
where paid directly by their own constituents. Perhaps
the local authorities expected that some taxes would be
diminished through the proposals of their MP, or that
some public works would be undertaken in the
constituency, or that some measures would be taken by
Parliament in their favour. The best way to ensure a
full time activity was thought to be some ownership over
their Member.
In
the XVIIIth and XIXth Centuries, a seat in Westminster
(and in other European Houses) became a lucrative source
of wealth in form of sinecure offices and pensions.
Middle-class citizens were prepared to pay large sums
for their seats or sought the patronage of the magnates
who had seats at their disposal. In 1901, the Osborne
Judgement in the UK declared illegal the trade-union
levy to pay for the support of all labour MPs. Under the
subsequent pressure of Labour Members (who had lost
their income source and were therefore in a very
different position to attend Parliament compared to the
rather rich Liberal and Conservative Members and than
all the Lords), the intelligent liberal Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Lloyd George, proposed in 1911 to pay all
Members an allowance: “When
we offer 400 Pounds Sterling a year, as payment of
Members of Parliament it is not a recognition of the
magnitude of the service, it is not a remuneration, it
is not a recompense, it is not even a salary. It is just
an allowance, and I think the minimum allowance, to
enable men to come here, men who would render
incalculable service to the State, and whom it is an
incalculable loss not to have here, but who cannot be
here because their means do not allow it. It is purely
an allowance to enable us to open the door to great and
honourable public service to these men, from whom this
country will be all the richer, all the greater, and all
the stronger for the unknown vicissitudes which it has
to face by having there to aid us by their counsel, by
their courage, and by their resource.”
Well
paid MPs, modern session rooms, transport,
communications, information technologies, research
facilities, staff support, attention of the media, legal
advice, all these are material improvements that have
developed and strengthened the western Committee Systems
in the last two decades. It was not done in two days,
but neither did it need two centuries. This is
undoubtedly one of the reasons for strong
parliamentarism in the western political systems.
Material improvements are as important towards this aim
as are more accurate Rules of Procedure, relevant legal
reforms or technical progress.
Our
debates today should help us in formulating a better
diagnostic of the challenges and in finding the best
solutions, relevant to the context of the Bangladesh
political system. Our effort consists in proposing
impartially what we believe is the best. The decisions,
as aforesaid, belong to the political leaders.
In
the context of alleviation of poverty, improvement of
good governance is an important tool and a strategic
objective. Democracy can only be achieved through having
a transparent and trustworthy political system. No
institution can restore confidence in democracy better
than the Parliament. Democracy and Development are the
two sides of the same coin. Development outlines the
need of material improvement of citizens’ living
conditions, of reducing the gap between the better off
in a society and the poor, the illiterate, the homeless,
the marginalised and the persons living with
disabilities. And also to reduce the gap between the
countries who are better off and those who continue to
face strong difficulties. Development seeks for social
equality of persons within and across borders. Democracy
stresses the importance of political equality, one man,
one vote, to give all the opportunity to decide the
better rule for their nation. No social development will
be complete if people do not feel free. No Democracy
will be strong enough if it does not solve efficiently
the social problems.
It
is for these reasons, the United Nations Development
Programme, who I represent today, is increasingly
twinning its more traditional and better-known
co-operation projects in the technical field with new
areas of project support, focusing under the umbrella of
Good Governance. And we believe strongly that a key
component of what we mean by good governance, is having
strong, fair and representative Parliaments. Thank you
very much for your attention.
|
