From right to left, the Chairman of the Panel, Dr. A. Moyeen Khan, MP, Mr. Abul Kalam Azad, MP and Chairman of the Standing Committee on Information, and Whip Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman, MP

 Report of the Conference on Committee 
Systems

Panel 2

Colloquy

Dr. Moyeen Khan thanked Ms. Alda Barry for giving the audience an elaborate glimpse of the Committee System of Westminster and opened the floor for questions. He however, requested Members to be concise and to confine the questions to the statements in the paper and the topic of the Session.

Mr. Khalequzzaman mentioned that Ms. Barry had stated in her paper that the Legislative (Standing) Committees were primarily responsible for the legislation and in recent times, with the Select Committees gaining more power, some of the legislative functions were now being entrusted to them.  He wanted to know the criteria that was used to determine whether an issue should be referred to the Standing Committee or the Select Committee.Ms. Barry replied that, since this was fairly a recent phenomenon, no particular criteria had yet been evolved and this issue was generally determined by the government business managers and not by the House. However, if it was something very controversial, like food standards for example, then the business managers would naturally tend to diminish their own responsibilities by referring the issue to a Select Committee.

Mr. Muhammad Faruque Khan spoke next and thanked Ms. Barry for her interesting and thought provoking paper.  He asked whether all Members of Parliament found a place in at least one of the committees. Ms. Barry replied that the number of Members were such that it is not possible to accommodate everyone in one of the committees and that no one was a member of more than one Departmental (Ministerial) Committee. There were however other committees and also pressure groups and other informal groups in the House.

Responding to a question regarding the composition of the committees, Ms. Barry mentioned that there were roughly 170 seats in the different committees and of these, 120 were from the Treasury Bench and 50 from the opposition.  The chairpersons of committees were also divided between the two Benches in the same proportion. When specialists were called, they were not taken from the civil service, because they work for the government and a situation where gamekeepers became poachers, or vice versa, would not be desirable. They were, on the other hand, usually taken from the academia or the legal profession, that is, from as broad a cross-section of people as possible.

Mr. Akhtaruzzaman mentioned that he was very encouraged by Ms. Barry's answer to Col. Faruk Khan about the chairpersons being appointed in the same proportion to the strength of the parties in the House.  He expressed the hope that the Law Minister will take the cue from this paper and make changes in the composition of committees to include more opposition members. He asked what be the normal size of a Standing Committee should be to ensure that the overview function could be effective. He also pointed out a difference in the practice in Bangladesh and in the UK in that, in Bangladesh, the Leader of the House makes the selection of the committee members and the chairperson.  The other difference was that in Bangladesh, each department had a committee.

Mr. Akhtaruzzaman continued by expressing a desire to see that recommendations of the committees were made mandatory for the government to implement and sought suggestions from Ms. Barry on this issue. He also made the observation, from the experience of the last 250 years, that whatever the British did at home was not implemented in the Colonies.  He mentioned that the country was ruled by the British for two hundred years, but before that there was a democratic tradition, in the likes of rulers like Issa Khan.  At that time, even in the United States, democratic practices were non-existent. Ms. Barry replied that she was not in a position to recommend ways in which the committee recommendations could be made mandatory for the House to implement. The problem would have to be sorted out by the Bangladesh Parliament Members themselves.   On the ideal size for a Committee, she said that it was difficult to quantify an ideal size - a smaller size would be better for efficiency in decision making and a larger size could have other advantages, although she would not like to see a large committee packed with compliant nominees as well.  She clarified that in the UK, only the Standing Committees varied in size.  As for the selection of members in the committees, the Committee of Selection put forward a number of names to the House and the House made its selection.

Mr. A. K. Azad,  thanked Ms. Barry for her paper and said that it would have been better if the paper was distributed beforehand. He asked about the time within which controversial matters which could not be resolved by the committee had to be placed to the House and the size of majority required for it to be passed.  Ms. Barry replied that it was the business managers who usually determined when it would be placed as well as the duration of the debate. Regarding the number required to pass a vote, it would have to be an absolute majority with a provision that the minimum number be 40.

Replying to a further question, Ms. Barry explained that a public hearing was simply a meeting where members of the public and the press were allowed to be present in the galleries. Nowadays it was also common to air it in the TV channels.   And replying to a question about powers to compel evidence, she said that it was rare that people would decline to give evidence to the Committees. She mentioned however, that a government department could say that this evidence should not be given to a Select Committee.  A department headed by a secretary of state could not be compelled to provide documents or witnesses. There were instances of making Ministers come and provide information to the committee but usually these papers would be made available to only certain members of the Select Committee and this would be done in a closed room where taking of notes was not allowed. She mentioned that despite the procedures, real life is not always cut and dry, and in many cases procedures themselves are also not always cut and dry.

Mrs. Khaleda Khanum enquired about the convention of having two chairpersons in a committee, from the Ruling Party and from the Opposition.  Her question was that if both the chairpersons were attending the committee, who would chair the meetings. Mrs. Barry explained that it was not as delicate as one would think.  There were two chairpersons mainly because the periods they sit are getting longer and longer. The chair usually did not do much more than the administrative function of conducting the meeting. They would also abstain from voting unless there was a tie and if they did cast their votes it would be according to the rules and not according to their preference. Answering another question on the number of women chairpersons of committees, Ms. Barry said she was not absolutely sure but she would presume that the number was not proportional simply because not enough of the women members were in the House long enough to shoulder the responsibilities of the chairperson.

Mr. Nurul Islam Nahid, asked how the chairpersons and the members of the committees coped with the amount of work that was generated from attending the committees as well as the normal work in their constituencies. He also wanted to know   whether the committees were empowered to appoint subcommittees and whether the general public could approach the chairmen or the members regarding their problems.  Ms. Barry mentioned in her reply that, like the Members in Bangladesh, their Members were also overworked and they coped with a lot of difficulty. In recent years, the hours in the Parliament were reduced to enable the Members to spend more time in their constituencies. As for the formation of subcommittees, this was a very usual practice. On whether the general public had access to the committee members, she said this was usual but Select Committees did not take up individual cases.

Mr. Ali Ashraf addressed a number of questions to Ms. Barry. He began by expressing his appreciation of meeting three Clerks of the British Parliament, including Ms. Barry.  He enquired whether the legislative body exercised control over the judiciary and if so how. Ms. Barry answered that the Select Committee did not oversee the judiciary although the Home Affairs Committee may make some recommendations. The appointment of judges is vested with the Lord Chancellor. She explained that this was actually a contentious subject, the Select Committee having often expressed the view that it should have more control but at the moment there was no control.  He then enquired as to how issues which had a bearing with the European Parliament were dealt with, especially when the issue was at cross-purposes with the view-points of the British House. Ms. Barry replied that so far there was no interface machinery not only with the European Parliament but also with the regional Parliaments. There was however, a European Scrutiny Committee that looked at the unusual uses of power by the European Parliament that had a bearing on the UK Parliament.

Mr. Afzal Khan  referred to the fact the House gave most Select Committees a  general remit to enquire into a particular area and report from time to time.  They would then decide their own agenda within this remit but the recommendations of the committee were not binding on the government.  He also referred to the statement of Professor Nizzamuddin from Chittagong University in the previous session who had observed that no satisfactory method of evaluating the performance of these committees had so far been evolved.  In view of these two observations he questioned the very purpose of having committees at all if their recommendations did not have any binding effect on the government. In her answer, Ms. Barry said that Select Committees were not supposed to play the role of an alternative to the government. Select Committees could however raise the issue on the floor again and again saying the government was not carrying out its recommendations. There was however no mechanism to force the government to yield except putting it to the House. Standing Committees, on the other hand, amended Bills only and since government was in majority here, naturally voting was always in favour of the government.

Barrister Rabia Bhuiyan enquired as to what happened to the recommendation of the 1995 Committee on Standards of Public Life. Ms. Barry reported that there now is a Code of Practice on Conduct of Members and that it was derived largely out of the recommendations of this committee.

The chairman of this panel, Dr. Moyeen Khan could not allow any more questions because of time constraints and thanked Ms. Alda Barry for her paper and the participants in the discussion and adjourned the meeting.