Mr. Khondaker Abdul Haque Miah

From left to right: Whip Prof. Khaleda Khanam MP, Whip Mr. Abdus Shahid MP and Shri Biren Sikder MP, during Mr. Khondaker's presentation

Mr. Waziuddin Khan, MP, addressing Mr. Khondaker Abdul Haque Miah in the colloquy

 Report of the Conference on Committee 
Systems

Committee System in Bangladesh Parliament

Presentation by Khondaker Abdul Haque Miah

The term ‘Committee’ - meaning a parliamentary committee  - has been defined in the Rules of Procedure1 of Bangladesh Parliament as a committee ‘set up by or under the authority of Parliament and includes its sub-committees’. Formation of parliamentary committees, their powers and responsibilities as well as procedures followed by them or in respect of them are regulated by relevant provisions in the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure, parliamentary conventions and rulings of the Speaker. A committee consisting, solely or partly, of Members of Parliament constituted by the government or any other authority cannot be termed a parliamentary committee. The convenor and other members of a nine-member committee2 formed by the then Government in 1992 to resolve the problem prevailing at that time in Chittagong Hill Tracts were all Members of Parliament. This committee could not however be regarded as a parliamentary committee because it was not set up by or under the authority of Parliament. There was, however, a short-lived misunderstanding if this committee could be regarded as a parliamentary committee. Misunderstandings of this kind have taken place elsewhere too. The Speaker of the British House of Commons had to give a ruling clarifying the authority behind a parliamentary committee. Eric Taylor has quoted this ruling in his book, ‘The House of Commons At Work.’  A part of the ruling3 reads as follows:

“The title ‘Parliamentary Committee’ has a technical meaning and can be properly  used only by a body appointed by one or both of the Houses of Parliament. Its use by bodies not so appointed is, as the Hon. Member says, apt to mislead the public by suggesting that the body has an authority and power which it does not in fact possess. It ought not to be impossible to find some other term to designate bodies, entirely or partly composed of Members of Parliament but not appointed by Parliament, which would sufficiently indicate their connection with Parliament without giving rise to misconception.” Similarly, a parliamentary committee cannot include in it any person who is not a Member of Parliament.

Constitutional Basis of the Committee System

The committee system in Jatiya Sangsad has its roots in the Constitution itself. The foundation of the system has been laid down by its Article 76, which is quoted below:

“76. (1) Parliament shall appoint from among its members the following standing committees, that is to say :

(a)     a public accounts committee;

(b)    committee of privileges; and

(c)     such other standing committees as the rules of procedure of Parliament require.

(2) In addition to the committees referred to in clause (1), Parliament shall appoint other standing committees, and a committee so appointed may, subject to this Constitution and to any other law

              (a)     examine draft Bills and other legislative proposals;

(b)    review the enforcement of laws and propose measures for such enforcement;

(c)     in relation to any matter referred to it by Parliament as a matter of public importance, investigate or inquire into the activities or administration of a Ministry and may require it to furnish, through an authorised representative, relevant information and to answer questions, orally or in writing;

(d)    perform any other function assigned to it by Parliament.

(3) Parliament may by law confer on committees appointed under this article powers for

(a)     enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise;

(b)    compelling the production of document.”

These provisions in our Constitution are unique in the sense that provisions regarding parliamentary committees are not generally mentioned in the constitution of a country. The aforesaid article of the constitution has given our Standing Committees the status of constitutional bodies. In a socialist country, there is only one ‘standing committee’ in the legislature and that committee assumes all powers, functions and responsibilities of the legislature itself when it is not in session. The status of the standing committees in Jatiya Sangsad and of that in a socialist country is entirely different.  

Classification of Committees

Generally speaking, one finds in parliamentary parlance mention of three kinds of committees: Standing Committee, Select Committee and Special Committee. In Jatiya Sangsad, however, there are some committees, which do not fit into any of these three types. This needs a little elaboration.  

Article 76 of the Constitution, as quoted above, speaks of Standing Committees only, providing, inter-alia, the following:

a.   Parliament shall appoint 2 standing committees viz. Public Accounts Committee (PAC), and Committee of Privileges.

b.   Parliament shall appoint other standing committees, as the Rules of Procedure of Parliament require.

c.   Parliament shall also appoint other standing committees for performance of duties and responsibilities assigned to them under clause (2) of this article.

In view of these provisions, the four committees nominated by the Hon’ble Speaker4 in accordance with the Rules of Procedure cannot be regarded as standing committees, for reason that they are not appointed by Parliament. Four other committees5 appointed by Parliament can also not be regarded as standing committees because they have not been  termed as standing committee in the Rules of Procedure. These are not select committees or Special Committees either. In spite of the fact that each of these eight committees have the characteristics of  a standing committee, they cannot be regarded as standing committees because of provisions in the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, these committees have been classified as ‘other committees’ in this paper.

Standing Committees

In the light of the foregoing, Bangladesh Jatiya Sangsad has at present the following 38 standing committees:

1. Public Accounts Committee

2. Committee of Privileges

3. Committee on Rules of Procedure, and

4-38. Standing Committees on Ministries.

The following table shows the constitution of the Standing Committees:

Select Committee and Special Committee 6

The 7^th Parliament of Bangladesh has not so far constituted any select committee. The only special committee that was constituted has been relieved of his functions since the formation of the standing committees on the ministries. The following table shows the constitution  of Select Committee and Special Committee:

Other Committees

The following table shows the constitution of four committees nominated by the Hon’ble Speaker:

The constitution of four other committees appointed by the House has been shown in the table below:

Salient features of the Parliamentary Committee System

A. Formation

The committee system established under the provisions of our Constitution and the Rules of Procedure consists presently of 46 Committees. Each committee enjoys powers to appoint one or more sub-committees. It is not known if any other legislature has a committee system with such a large number of committees. India’s Lok Sabha has 33 committees, of which 18 are joint committees formed with members from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The number of departmentally related committees in House of Commons  - they call them Select Committees - is only 14. Our committee-system is not limited to these 46 committees alone. It is told that 47 sub-committees have so far been formed. A few of these sub-commitees have already completed their work assigned to them. These sub-committees almost enjoy the status of the main committee. Therefore, it can be said that the committee system of Bangladesh Jatiya Sangsad presently consists of 93 committees and sub-committees. Although the Jatiya Sangsad has no Select or Special Committee, it may be necessary to form a select or special committee at any moment. In 1972 when the Rules of Procedure were framed and given effect to, the number of Standing Committees on Ministries was only eleven7 and the total number of Committees was limited to 22. But subsequently the number has kept on increasing.

B. Tenure of Committees

All committees of Jatiya Sangsad, whether they are standing committees or not, have a permanent character. Usually, a committee once formed continues until dissolution of Parliament. Parliament can, however, reconstitute a committee any time. Such reconstitution becomes necessary on appointment of a member of a committee as a Minister or to accommodate a member who has been elected in a bye-election. However, the tenure of a special committee or a select committee ends with the performance of its assigned responsibility. Such a long tenure of committees is not to be found in other Parliaments. All committees appointed by India’s Lok Sabha have a term of one year. These include Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSC), which can be compared to our Standing Committees on Ministries. Committees nominated by the Speaker of Lok Sabha also have term of one year. In very exceptional cases the Speaker would keep a member in a particular committee for each a maximum of two-terms. In view of this long tenure, the Parliamentary Committees get ample time to complete their tasks. Members of the committees can obtain detailed information on matters connected with their committees and can contribute significantly to the government’s decision-making process.

C. Constitution  of  Parliamentary Committees and Management of Matters Connected with Them

From the four tables placed earlier in this paper it will be seen:

-2 committees consist of not more than 15 members8

-2 committees consist of not more that 12 members9

-1 committee consists of not more than 9 members10

-1 committee consists not more than 8 members11

Standing Committees on Ministries and four other committees consist of not more that 10 members12 and the Petition Committee has to consist of at least 10 members. Honourable Speaker announces his nomination to four committees in a sitting of Parliament. Other parliamentary committees are formed by a motion in Parliament. The Leader of the House himself/herself or any other parliamentary leader in his/her behalf moves the motion before the House. We have a convention that a motion moved by the Leader of the House is not opposed. In fact all motions regarding formation/constitution of parliamentary committees are unanimously approved by Parliament. If any one has any difference of opinion on such a motion, the matter is discussed outside the House. On 23^rd July, 1999 when the motion of the Leader of the House for constitution of a Special Committee was put to vote members in the opposition gave silent consent, although they had a different view on this matter.

There is no specific mention in the Rules of Procedures regarding on the number of members in the Select and Special Committees. However, the Speaker of one of our previous Parliaments in a ruling observed that the number of members in a Special Committee should not exceed fifteen, arguing that the maximum number of members in any parliamentary committees did not exceed fifteen. It has been stated before that the Chairman of the Committees may be chosen in a number of ways. The Speaker and Deputy Speaker presides over some committees in ex-officio capacity. Chairmen of the committees nominated by the Speaker are nominated by him. Chairmen of the committees appointed by Parliament are appointed by the House. So far there has been no deviation from this practice. In case, however, Parliament has not elected the chairman of a certain committee, the members can choose the Chairman from amongst themselves.

Previously, a  Minister used to be the ex-officio Chairman of the Standing Committee on his Ministry. This rule was however, amended on October 6, 1997and the amended Rule 247 now provides that a Minister shall be an ex-officio member of the Standing Committee on his Ministry, but he cannot chair the Committee. A Minister, who is not a Member of the House, can attend meetings of a Committee and take part in its proceedings but he cannot vote. This amendment has enriched the committee-system of our Parliament.

The sittings of a committee are held on days fixed by the Chairman.  In his absence, however, the Secretary may fix the date and time of a sitting. Meetings of a committee are held in private within the precincts of the House. If a sitting is proposed to be held outside, the matter has to be referred to the Speaker whose decision is final. A committee can however inspect or visit any place anywhere in the country despite the bar on holding of meetings outside of the precincts of the House. If the office of Chairman falls vacant or if he is not present in a meeting, the members of the committee can elect a Chairman of the sitting from among themselves. The quorum to constitute a sitting of a committee is, as near as may be, one-third of the total number of members of the committee. All persons other than members of the committee and officers of the Parliament Secretariat have to withdraw when the committee is deliberating. However, meetings of standing committees on Ministries and a few other committees give us a different scenario. Officers of concerned ministries and other offices remain present in the meeting to assist these committees.

The Rules of Procedure require that a record of decisions of a committee shall be maintained and circulated to members of the committee under the direction of the Chairman. But a practice has developed that minutes of meetings are prepared in respect of all committee meetings expect the Business Advisory Committee, in case of which only decisions are recorded. According to the Rules of Procedure, the Secretary of the Parliament Secretariat is the ex-officio Secretary of all parliamentary committees. It has already been said that the definition of a committee includes a sub-committee and, hence, Secretary is also Secretary of all sub-committees. He can however nominate any other official of the Parliament Secretariat to perform his functions in the Committees. The secretariat service of some Committees like the Business Advisory Committee, Privileges Committee, the Standing Committee on Rule of Procedure and the Petition Committee is rendered by the Legislation Wing of the Parliament Secretariat and the Secretary himself performs the duties of Secretary of these Committees. The power of a parliamentary committee to summon 13 a witness13 is exercised by the Secretary. He has also the responsibility to produce such documents as are required by a parliamentary committee. 

D. Duties and Powers of Parliamentary Committees

Until recently the functions of some committees in the House of Commons used to be referred to as ‘watchdog’ function. It used to be said that there is a lot of shouting in a committee meeting but a parliamentary committee could not scratch or bite anyone because it had neither the claws nor the teeth to do so. However, times have changed and the Parliamentary Committees have now emerged as effective tools in the process of accountability of the Government. In this context, we find these days the use of the term ‘oversight or over-seeing function’ to describe a very important function of parliamentary committees. What is actually the status of a parliamentary committee to oversee the activities of government departments? What powers are invested to a parliamentary committee to perform this function? These questions cannot be replied to in a word or two, for all of it is not written in clear terms, neither here in Bangladesh nor possibly anywhere else. An answer to these questions should be sought not only from parliamentarians but also from different segments of the civil society like people from the academia, professional bodies and other citizens’ groups.

Our constitution has vested the executive powers of the Republic on the Prime Minister to be exercised by him/her or on his/her authority. Thus it follows that the Parliamentary Committees cannot exercise any executive powers. This is true for all parliamentary system including that of Britain. However, we must hasten to add that the parliamentary committees have not been barred from making any recommendations on matters assigned to the executive branch. On the contrary, the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure has given certain powers to the Standing Committees of each of the Ministries. The Rules of Procedure state that: “248.  . . . the functions of a Committee shall be to examine any bill or other matter referred to it by Parliament, to review the works relating to a Ministry which falls within its jurisdiction, to inquire into any activity or irregularity and serious complaint in respect of the Ministry and to examine, if it deems fit, any such other matter as may fall within its jurisdiction and to make recommendations :”

This provision has constitutional basis as may be seen in Article 76(2) of the Constitution. Here we would like to quote the functions of DRSCs in the Indian Parliament:

“331E. (1) The functions of each of the Standing Committees shall be

1. to consider the Demands for Grants of the concerned Ministries/ Departments and make a report on the same to the Houses. The report shall not suggest anything of the nature of cut motions;

2. to examine such Bills pertaining to the concerned Ministries/Departments as are referred to the Committee by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha or the Speaker, as the case may be, and make report thereon;

3. to consider annual reports of Ministries/Departments and make reports thereon;

4. to consider national basic long term policy documents presented to the Houses, if referred to the Committee by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha or the Speaker, as the case may be, and make reports thereon.

(2) The Standing Committees shall not consider the matters of day to day administration of the concerned Ministries/Departments.”

A comparison of the functions of the Standing Committees in Jatiyo Sangsad with those in the Lok Sabha will reveal more dissimilarities than similarities. The primary function of the DRSCs is to scrutinise demands for grants and report its recommendations to Parliament. We do not have any such system of scrutinising demands for grants. The only similarity that exists is in respect of scrutinising bills referred to them by Parliament. The DRSCs are also authorised to examine the Annual Reports and can consider national basic long term policy documents if referred to them by the House. But a DRSC cannot consider matters of day-to-day administration of the Ministries/Departments. On the other hand, our Standing Committees on ministries can review the enforcement of laws and the activities of the ministries or inquire into any activity or irregularity or serious complaints. So, it is quite evident, that the Standing Committees in Jatiya Sangsad enjoy more authority and can exercise greater powers than the DRSCs in the Indian Lok Sabha. It will not be an exaggeration to state that amongst all the countries which have a Parliamentary System of Government the Standing Committees on the Ministries in Jatiya Sangsad enjoy the widest powers. Rule 203 of the Rules of Procedure empowers the Committees to summon any records, documents and persons that it may require for investigation. However, a question may be raised by the concerned person whether his own presence or production of documents in his possession is relevant to the work of the committee. Should a controversy of this nature arise, the Speaker is vested with powers to give a final decision. The government may decline to produce a document on the ground that its disclosure would be prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State. A parliamentary committee may administer oath to a witness to be examined before it. A member of a committee or any other person cannot make any disclosure of any evidence given by a witness before it is placed in the House.

E. Report of Parliamentary Committees

The Rules of Procedure provide that the report of a committee has to be presented within a month of the date on which reference to the Committee was made, if the House has not fixed any time for presentation of the report. A report may be preliminary or final. The Chairman, on behalf of a Committee, submits report before the House under his signature. If the Chairman is not present, any other member of the committee can be nominated to present the report on behalf of the committee. In the fifth Parliament some of the committee reports were laid in the House with signatures of all members of the committee. A committee report is considered confidential until it is presented in the House. Reports of parliamentary committees are presented in Parliament but most of them are not discussed. There is clear provision regarding disposal of reports of the Committee of Privileges and the Standing Committee on Rules of Procedure. The disposal of reports of select committee on bills have also been mentioned in detail in the legislative procedures of Parliament The parliamentary committees whose reports are not discussed in the House include the Public Accounts Committee, Public Undertakings Committee, Estimates Committee, Committee on Government Assurances and the Standing Committees on Ministries. Except in special circumstances, there is hardly any need for presentation of report of the Business Advisory Committee, House Committee and the Library Committee.

There is an unwritten rule or convention in the Jatiya Sangsad in respect of reports of parliamentary committees whose reports are presented in the House but are not discussed. According to this convention, a report presented in the House is considered to have been referred to the concerned ministry for implementation. The report of the Public Accounts Committee is a proper example of this conference. In case of audit reports in respect of whom audit objections could not be met up at the level of officials, the Comptroller and Auditor General places his reports for finalisation by Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee gives their views on these reports and places recommendations in Parliament for implementation by the respective ministries. It is the responsibility of a concerned ministry to implement the report of the Public Account Committee. Should a ministry be unable to implement any of the recommendations the same has to be conveyed to the committee in the form a clarification. This unwritten rule is applicable to most other committees of Parliament as well including the committees on Ministries.

F. Consensus in the Parliamentary Committees

One happy feature that characterises the working of parliamentary standing committees of Jatiya Sangsad in respect of their oversight function is that decisions in Committees are largely unanimous. In a few cases where unanimity could not be achieved decisions and recommendations were taken on the basis of consensus. Minutes of committee meetings bear testimony to this statement. It must however be mentioned that unanimity and consensus is limited to committees performing oversight functions only. Instances of disagreement in committees examining bills referred to them are not rare.

Reforms in the Parliamentary Committee System

Recent Reforms

The 7^th Parliament has initiated a programme of reforms in parliamentary rules and procedures. One of the amendments carried out in the Rules of Procedure stipulated that a Parliamentary Committee would be chaired by a Member of Parliament who is not a Minister. The Standing Committees have been constituted after this amendment.

The other change in the committee system took place on July 23, 1996. The Leader of the House pledged that all govt. Bills introduced in the House would first be referred to the Standing Committee of the Ministry concerned for examination for report. The bill will be considered in the House only after the Committee has submitted its report. Since the Ministerial Committees had  not been formed at that point of time, a Special Committee was formed and all Bills placed before the House were referred to the Special Committee, except bills like Appropriation Bill, Finance etc. which are barred from being referred to any Committee under the rules.

Proposal for Reforms

The Honourable Speaker has pledged to continue this reforms process as he said: ‘… Committees have proven to be the most specific and accurate tool that Parliament as an institution, and MPs as its representatives, can to fulfil their constitutional role. The Bangladesh Parliament has established a large Committee system, recently improved by the provision for non-Minister MPs to act as Committee Chairpersons. However, this progress and institutional reform path needs to be continued, with a view to further strengthening the role of the Committees within the House.’ Inspired by the above statement, we place the some recommendations for continuing the reform process of parliamentary committees.

(1) It is not known whether Parliament of any other country has as many Committees as we have in Bangladesh. The Rules of Procedure framed in 1994 provided only 11 Standing Committees and the total number of parliamentary committees did not exceed 22. Only 4 committee rooms are available to these Committees for holding meetings. There are also other serious limitations. Consideration may be given as to whether there are enough personnel in the secretariat as delays in preparation of minutes can hamper the effectiveness of these Committees. As an alternative, a study may be conducted to find out whether the committee system can be re-organised by   reducing the number of Committees and increasing the number of Members in each Committee. The proposed study may also examine whether

1. There is any possibility of an overlap in the responsibilities of two or more Committees due to the large number of Committees. If there is, whether action may be taken towards rationalisation.

2. The responsibilities vested in some of the Committees can be transferred to standing Committees on Ministries.

3. The powers of Committees to form sub-committees can be limited as in the House of Commons. For example, Honourable Speaker’s approval may be made mandatory in the formation of Sub-committees.

(2) Existing provisions in the Rules of Procedures regarding submission of reports by the parliamentary committees cannot be termed as adequate. Rules 209 provides that: “Where the House has not fixed any time for the presentation of the report by a Committee, the report shall be presented within one month of the date on which reference to the Committee was made”. It will be observed that the dependence of parliamentary committee on the House in respect their powers to review the enforcement of law and propose measures for such enforcement as given in Article 76 (2) (b) or some of their powers mentioned in Rule 248 is only marginal. There is hardly any instance of any matter being referred to a standing Committee on ministries by Parliament, other than a Bill introduced in the House. Only a fraction of the work done by parliamentary Committees emanates from the House. The time frame given in Rule 209 (1) does not clearly apply to a parliamentary committee in respect of any matter other matter referred to it by the House. In the absence of any clear provisions in the Rules, these is no written obligation on standing Committees to report to Parliament on matters other than referred to there by it. Parliament cannot have any idea as to what its committees have been doing in the absence of reports. Although accountability of the government to Parliament through its Committees has strengthened, it has to be transparent at the same time. Transparency in this respect can be achieved only through regular reports by the parliamentary committee to Parliament. The 14 Departmentally related Committees of the House of Commons submitted 193 reports to Parliament in 1979-83. Number of reports in the next Parliament increased further. To quote J.A.G Griffith and Michael Ryle14:“ during the 1983-87 Parliament, the 14 committees made 229 reports (excluding special reports). The most prolific was the Treasury and Civil Service Committee with 34 reports, followed by the Energy Committee and the Defense Committee each with 26 reports.”

We feel that the Rules of Procedure ought to have clear provisions so that each standing committee is required to submit reports at regular intervals. Of course, some of the Committees such as the Business Advisory Committee, House Committee and the Library Committee would not be required to submit formal reports to the House except in very special circumstances.

1. Rules of Procedure of Bangladesh Jatiya Sangsad: Rule 2(1) (f)