Mr. M.K. Anwar, MP, in the centre between Mrs. Mariam Begum, MP and Mr. Abu Yusuf Khalilur Rahman, MP, speaking during the colloquy

Whip Mr. Abdus Shahid MP, taking the floor during the colloquy

 Report of the Conference on Committee 
Systems

Panel 1

Colloquy

Opening the discussion, Chairperson Rabia Bhuiyan thanked all the presenters, saying that they had given material for thoughtful discussions.

Taking the floor, Dr. Rustam Ali Farazi agreed that the committees have ample powers and opportunity to make recommendations but he complained that these recommendations are not being implemented by Ministries. He asked what was the fate of resolutions adopted by committees after months of deliberations and debates.   He particularly wanted to know why the resolutions were not being implemented. Since this is the case, he asked: "why are we harassed?" and questioned the necessity of having committees.

Continuing the discussion, Mr. Abu Yusuf Md. Khalilur Rahman said that the presenters had discussed the problems with the existing committee system and had given their recommendations. He said he had hoped that the amendments to the Rules of Procedure providing for non-minister chairpersons would result in an increase in the effectiveness of the committees. But, he regretted, that the scope of the committees had become more limited than before. "I have noticed," he said, "that chairpersons look at the Ministers for guidance. I have even heard a chairperson telling a Member that he should not say something, which should be brought to the notice of the Prime Minister. These limitations have rendered the committee system rather shaky." He was of the opinion that implementation of the recommendations made by the presenters depend on Ruling Party Members, especially the Leader of the House. Mr. Rahman continued saying that the position of the chairpersons should be strengthened further by amending the Rules of Procedure and that, if this was not done, the committee system cannot be made effective. He stated that while recommendations can be made, they will remain in the cold storage if there is no goodwill from the side of the government.  The recommendations of this conference must be implemented by the government and, if necessary, the Leader of the House shall have to be persuaded. He believed that, unless this was done, the result of the conference will be zero. He concluded by stressing that the position of the chairpersons must be strengthened.

Following the above statement, Mr. M. S. Akbar said that, as a chairperson, he has come across some limitations of the committees and that unless these are solved the committee system could never be strengthened. He explained that although MPs have been made the chairpersons of the committees, the status of the chairpersons have not been properly laid down. As a result, often the chairpersons appear to be helpless while conducting the meetings and without the co-operation of the Minister it often becomes difficult to take decisions. He highlighted the insufficient logistics and other support services and particularly that the Secretariat staff and officers are so overworked they cannot perform their duties properly.  He continued by questioning the justification of taking decisions if these are not implemented and suggested the possibility of a training course for the chairpersons with specific terms of reference. Finally, Mr. Akbar explained that the Cabinet meets every week but the committee chairpersons could meet the Leader of the House only once and that they have not yet sat with the Speaker even once. Removing all these limitations was very important if the relevance and effectiveness of the committees was not to be lost.

In his intervention, Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman (Manu) stated that Md. Khalequzzaman had spoken about Article 70 of the Constitution but had not explained whether he wanted a relaxation of the provisions of the Article.  He argued that the Article is an impediment not only for the ruling party MPs but for all Members of the Parliament.  Mr. Rahman requested the view of Md. Khalequzzaman as to how far this Article curbs the democratic rights of the MPs.  He was hopeful that, if there was consensus, then perhaps Article 70 could be relaxed. Regarding the oversight role, Mr. Rahman disagreed with Mr. Khalilur Rahman and argued that committees are formed to help ensure transparency of the Ministries and not to act as the guardian of that Ministry.  He strongly supported the presence of Ministers in the committee meetings and disagreed with Mr. Khalilur Rahman's observation that Minister's presence created difficulties for the chairpersons. He cited from his own experience that chairpersons are working in a free atmosphere. Mr. Rahman said that the committees must function as per the Rules of Procedure but, at the same time, it has to be ascertained as to whether the provisions of the Rules of Procedure are being implemented fully or not. Kazi Shamsur Rahman believed that all present would agree with the suggestions made by Md. Khalequzzaman in his paper. He continued by questioning whether the committees keep in mind the national interests while taking decisions.

Taking the floor, Mr. Abdul Kalam Azad said that, although Bangladesh became independent 29 years ago, the history of Parliament was only 13 years and history of democracy eight years. He stated that it was not reasonable to expect perfection of the committee system in such a short period.  Committees were working reasonably and moving in the right direction but he opined that it would take time for the system to develop properly. Mr. Azad then referred to Khondoker Abdul Haque Miah's paper and wanted the latter's considered opinion on the overlapping of functions between Public Accounts Committee, Public Undertakings Committee and the Standing Committee on the Ministries, questioning particularly the jurisdictions of these committees.

Taking part in the colloquy, Mr. Mojibur Rahman said that a precedent has been created by nominating 45 chairpersons out of the total of 46 committees from the ruling party. He stated that future governments would perhaps do the same and that this was an issue which needed to be discussed.

As the discussion continued, Prof. Nizamuddin Ahmed of Chittagong University wondered if time has come for a proper evaluation of the committee system. In the 5th Parliament committees functioned for a full three years but there has not yet been any evaluation.  Evaluation is a continuous process.  Prof. Nizamuddin explained that in the late 1970s there was an evaluation of the British committee system by the House of Commons and that follow up actions were taken on the basis of that evaluation. Continuing, Prof. Nizamuddin wanted to know from the Chairman of the Committee on Education Ministry whether the observations made in his paper were derived from his personal experiences. He said that the commonly shared view was that the Parliament was on decline but that, through the committee system, the Parliament was getting back powers usurped by the executive. He said he had read in newspapers that committees give directives to Ministries and wondered if the committees have that inherent power. If they have, then there is bound to be a clash between the executive and the Parliament.  In his own view, the committees should only recommend and they cannot give directives. He continued to say that he has gone through the reports of the committees of the 5th Parliament but has not come across a single instance where the committees have recommended things of fundamental nature.

Mr. Shah Hadiuzzaman opened his statement by saying that he saw something very positive in the conference that was being held with assistance from the UNDP. He said it was unthinkable in 1972-73 or 1989-90 that Ruling Party and Opposition Members would sit together in this way and he saw this as a positive development. He admitted that there were problems in the Parliament but believed that never before had there been such an atmosphere which made him hope that things would improve. The conference was the result of democratic practice which has been absent in the past. He agreed that recommendation of the committees were not being implemented by the Ministries, as well as agreed with the earlier statement regarding the lack of logistics and other support for the committee.

Prof. Panna Kaiser, on taking the floor, thanked UNDP for arranging the conference and expressed the hope that this conference would help in ensuring the transparency and accountability of the government. She stated that one of the positive aspects of the committee system is that while in the floor of the House there are ruling party and opposition members this feeling does not exist in the committee meetings. This is a positive aspect as issues are freely discussed. She disagreed that deliberations were influenced by the Ministers, believing that everyone had the freedom to express their opinions. Prof. Panna Kaiser continued to say that, side by side with the issue of providing logistic support to the Chairpersons, the Members should also be given certain facilities. She also suggested that more women MPs should be included in the Standing Committees and concluded by saying that she was in favour of women playing an increasingly important role in the committees.  Prof. Khaleda Khanam intervened to support the above statement.

Mr. Waziuddin Khan also congratulated UNDP for organising the conference and said that this would go a long way in shaping the political culture. He said the committees have certain limitations but that these would be possible to overcome through discussions such as these.

Mr. Hafiz Ahmed Mazumder said that responsibility without authority was self-contradictory and questioned whether it is known what the responsibilities of the Standing Committees were. Authority is needed for the proper discharge of responsibilities.  However, he continued to say that he saw a silver lining in an otherwise cloudy atmosphere.  He called for fixing up of a minimum responsibility with minimum powers as otherwise it would be a wild goose chase.

Mr. Mostafizur Rahman said the Constitution was not only suspended several times, some illegal acts were also made legal.  He wanted to know from Md. Khalequzzaman how this practice of suspending the Constitution could be stopped.

Ms. Razia Matin Chaudhury said that committees have made it possible to discuss problems, small and big, in detail and elaborately and added that she saw no problem from the chairpersons or the Ministers. She believed it was necessary to discuss and take steps to see that the resolutions adopted by the committee were implemented as far as practicable. Finally, she called for greater participation of women in parliamentary affairs and activities.

Mr. Mojibur Rahman expressed his praise for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for introducing the system of having non-Ministers as chairpersons of the committees. Things will improve, he said, but it will take time, and concluded by saying that "this Parliament was not built in a day".

Mr. Abdus Shahid, Whip, also thanked UNDP for organising the conference but complained that most Members of the Parliament did not receive anything except the invitation card before the conference. He continued to explain that, although the Rules of Procedure provided guidelines for the committees, the status and position of the chairpersons have been left undefined.  If ensuring accountability of the Ministries is the aim, then the powers and responsibilities of the chairpersons must be clear. He finally asked the panelists whether the committees have been able to ensure accountability of the Ministries.

Following the above statement and question from Mr. Shahid, the Chair requested the panelists to respond to the various questions, which arose from the floor. Replying to Mr. Mizanur Rahman Manu's question, Md. Khalequzzaman said that in the USA legislators enjoy freedom even outside party lines, although the situation is totally different in the House of Commons where legislators always follow along the party lines. He believed Article 70 to be necessary as "you cannot vote for a no-confidence motion and throw out a party on whose ticket you have been elected."  He did add, however, that this provision has been made so rigid and inflexible that the role of the legislators has become totally insignificant.   He saw the solution as limiting the Article to important matters like no-confidence motions and the election of the Speaker. In other matters, it would greatly help if the MPs were allowed to speak freely. He cited certain examples to show how free discussions could be immensely helpful in some areas. He believed that if this was done then small caucuses would develop and the culture of legislation would change. This would have an influence on committees, Parliament and the whole nation. He concluded by saying that national consensus was the need of the hour.

Taking the floor, Col. (Retd) Shaukat Ali requested all participants not to raise controversial issues/or make controversial statements. He clarified that the Private Member's Bill brought by Major (retd) Hafizuddin was thoroughly discussed in the committee and it was found that existing laws were enough to take care of the problems. So the committee had recommended to the Parliament not to consider the Bill. He also clarified the positions regarding Bills brought by Mr. M.K. Anwar and Mr. Amir Khasru Mahmud Choudhury.

Mr. M.K. Anwar also requested all participants not to raise controversial issues as this would really open up a Pandora's box. He regretted that the Conference was structured so as not to give scope for detailed discussions.

Mr. Nurul Islam Nahid refuted Mr. Khalilur Rahman's allegation that committee activities have become limited and said that the opposite was "true talk". He said that people know about the committees and that we are now talking about our experience. Replying to Mr. Nizamuddin's question, Mr. Nahid explained that the papers had been presented in individual capacity.

Replying to the query from Mr. Abul Kalam Azad, Khondoker Abdul Haque Miah said that such a vast committee system as in Bangladesh perhaps did not exist anywhere else. As a result, it is only natural that there will be duplication of work. He said that a survey should be conducted about this duplication of work and suggested that on the basis of that survey the Committee on Rules of Procedure can take a decision.