The standing committee conundrum

This speaks of the helplessness or disinclination of the parliamentary watchdog to discharge its constitutional responsibility to "investigate or inquire into the activities or administration" of that ministry. The effectiveness of standing committees on other ministries may not present a better picture. The members of the civil society and the print media have thus raised questions on the role of parliamentary standing committees on ministries.

The constitution of Bangladesh provides provisions for establishing different parliamentary committees. The constitution through Article 76 empowers the parliament of Bangladesh to appoint from among its members a standing committee on public accounts, committee of privilege and such other standing committees as the rules of procedure of parliament (ROP) require.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The constitution itself and the ROP, framed and adopted by parliament pursuant to Article 75 (1) (a) of the constitution, guide and regulate functional details, overall operation and terms of reference of ministerial standing committees. Rule 188 of the ROP provides that the members of a committee shall be appointed by parliament on a motion made by it. No member of parliament (MP) shall be appointed to a committee who has a personal, pecuniary or direct interest in any matter that may be considered by that committee. Nor shall an MP be appointed to a committee if he is not willing to serve on it. The term of office of ministerial standing committees remains valid during the duration of parliament.

According to the constitution and the ROP, the functions of a standing committee on a ministry are: (a) to examine draft bills and other legislative proposals relating to that ministry; (b) to investigate or inquire into the activities or administration of the ministry and examine, if it deems fit, any such other matter as may fall within its jurisdiction and make recommendations; (c) to review the enforcement of laws and propose measures for such enforcement; and (d) to perform any function assigned to it by parliament.

There are allegations that the ministerial standing committees are not effectively discharging their assigned functions. What has prompted these allegations? Why are the ministerial standing committees designated ineffective?

First, rule 246 of the ROP provides that parliament shall, as soon as may be, after the inauguration of each new parliament appoint a standing committee on each of the ministries. But a cursory look into the events of the immediate past and the current parliament show that this guidance of the ROP has not been followed.

During the period of the immediate past Awami League (AL) government, only a few parliamentary standing committees on the ministries without the inclusion of lawmakers from the then main opposition BNP were appointed after sixteen months from the date of inauguration of the 7th parliament. After the submission of names of the BNP lawmakers, all the ministerial standing committees came to be constituted in full shape on May 12, 1998, that is, nearly two years after the inauguration of the 7th parliament.

Parliamentary standing committees on ministries without incorporating lawmakers from the main opposition AL were formed after a year from the date of inauguration of the current (8th) parliament. After the submission of the names of the AL lawmakers, the committees came to be reconstituted in their full shape on September 16, 2004, that is, almost after three years from the date of inauguration of the 8th parliament.

Even after the reconstitution of the committees, the AL lawmakers had to wait for green signal from the party high command to attend the meetings of the committees. Thus the long delay in the formation of full-fledged ministerial standing committees due to the confrontational politics of the two major parties, the BNP and the AL, which have held the state powers during the last fourteen years, has adversely affected the functioning of these committees.

Second, prior to an amendment in the ROP during the seventh parliament, ministers themselves headed the standing committees on ministries. The amendment provided that no minister but only an MP would be eligible for the chairmanship of each of the ministerial standing committees. The then AL government deserves appreciation for this amendment. But the AL government was not sagacious enough to accommodate the then main opposition BNP's request to allocate chairmanship of some committees. The present BNP-led alliance government has set the same example by denying chairmanship of any committee to the AL.

The chairmen of the standing committees remain under pressure of the party high ups. A BNP lawmaker in his capacity as the chairman of the standing committee on a ministry cannot for obvious reasons take a hard stand to unearth serious irregularities committed by that ministry. He cannot afford to incur the displeasure of the party's leadership. Reportedly, a few chairmen belonging to the BNP were reprimanded by the party's high command for their initial hard stand on the irregularities in the ministries concerned. Unless steps such as proportionate representation of lawmakers in the committees and allocation of chairmanship of the committees on a proportional basis are taken, it will hardly be possible for the committees to function effectively.

Third, inquiries undertaken by a ministerial standing committee or a sub-committee into the alleged irregularities of the ministry concerned rarely make any headway.

In its editorial titled: "Dysfunctional Parliamentary Committees," dated June 18, the Bangladesh Observer writes: "Reportedly, in the past two years the parliamentary committees constituted as many as 121 investigation committees or sub-committees to probe the alleged ministerial and departmental malfeasance. Sadly more than 100 of those probe failed to submit any report. The committees which did it, did it mere perfunctorily and most of the time the findings are inconclusive. Even more serious charges have been brought against the members of the probe committees in that it is alleged that the members make a compromise with the minister concerned and stop the investigation. This is however not for nothing. Some of them receive special favour in the form of public works or trade from the ministry in exchange for this inaction."

The Daily Star in its editorial titled: "Allegations of corruption" of June 17 writes: "Investigations into the charges of corruption against ministers and high officials by parliamentary sub-committees have made little headway and, in most cases, come to a complete halt. For

example, allegations of irregularity in importing and marketing CNG autorickshaws were levelled against the communications minister and a parliamentary investigation committee was formed on January 28 last year, but it has failed to deliver a report in nearly 17 months despite four-time extension of deadline. That is also the general picture of other committees formed to investigate corruption at the highest level."

In its editorial titled: "JS sub-committees, eerily silent" dated May 15, New Age writes: "The facts are known and have been known to the country. Politics, in that meaningful sense, has stalled in the land. And yet when the country is informed by the media that the many sub-committees set up by parliament to inquire into allegations of ministerial as well as administrative corruption have not been working, there is something of a shock that comes into our sensibilities. In recent days, media reports have indicated the extent to which these sub-committees have failed or have been unwilling to do the job they were assigned to do. The speaker has taken exception to such an attitude on the part of the committees. The more important question here is, however, one of what moves he can take to activate the sub-committees. If parliament and its guardian are powerless about making the sub-committees effective, it can only be the nation which will find itself helpless before all the powerful men and women who have been taking the country for a ride."

Fourth, the chairmen of the standing committees have been accusing the ministries of non-cooperation with the standing committees and of non-implementation of their recommendations. They can make recommendations only and have no authority to force the ministries to implement their recommendations. They have thus been demanding formulation of clear rules of procedure giving due authority to them for the execution of their decisions.

Last but not least, the constitution and the ROP have empowered the ministerial standing committees to investigate or inquire into the activities or administration of the ministries concerned and examine other relevant issues, and the ministries are under obligation to furnish necessary information and answer questions, oral or written. On completion of investigation and inquiry, the committees will submit their reports including recommendations for consideration and/or approval of parliament. The standing committees are, therefore, the eyes and ears of parliament regarding supervision of activities of the ministries.

In other words, these committees could be the most effective instrument of parliamentary oversight if they could effectively discharge their duties. But this does not happen. The committees pay little attention to the policy issues and implementation of development programmes of the ministries. Public Administration Reforms Commission in its report of June, 2000 thus observes: "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."

To conclude, in the greater national interest, the standing committees on ministries must discharge their assigned responsibilities without fear or favour. They should be objective rather than being subjective in the discharge of their functions. The ministries must render all co-operation and assistance to the committees. Any non-cooperation by a ministry should be seriously dealt with. Parliament should give due importance to the recommendations made by these committees to give effect to the constitutional stipulation that the executive is responsible to parliament.

M. Abdul Latif Mondal is a former Secretary to the government.