Opinion Driving by committee
Parliament may meet for less time than it did in the 1980s but that means it does more work....
As another Budget Session of Parliament commences,one can expect the usual hard wringing about the continuing erosion of the parliamentary system,apparently evidenced by the reduction in the number of days of sitting from over 100 in the 1980s to less than 85 now and by the reduction in the number of bills passed by the two houses. Whatever may be true of other charges,at least on these two counts,it is important to set the record straight.
Prior to 1993,Parliament on average did in fact meet for 100 days or more in a year. However,in 1992,the Committee on Rules of the Rajya Sabha,in its fifth report,recommended the setting up of three parliamentary committees,on human resources development,on industry and on labour,with the object of enlarging and qualitatively enhancing the association of MPs with key sectors of national reconstruction so as to maximise utilisation of the rich experience and expertise of members from both houses. The matter was further discussed in a joint sitting of the rules committees of both houses in March 1993; and,as a result,17 department-related parliamentary standing committees were constituted,with representation from both houses.
The functions of these committees was to consider (with respect to the specific ministry concerned): demands for grants; legislative proposals (bills); the annual report; and national basic long-term policy documents referred to the committee. A convention developed by which the Budget Session was held in two parts,with a break to enable the committee to consider these issues and present a report to Parliament. Not surprisingly,the number of sittings of the two houses decreased to that extent but clearly,in the process,parliamentary scrutiny of the executive,far from decreasing,has actually become more focused and purposeful.
How much of Parliaments time is spent on legislative business is of course important,but only in its context. India has actually a fairly systematic and robust legislative framework,going back to pre-independence times (particularly,and not surprisingly,given colonial structures,regulatory legislation). Most recent legislative initiatives have focused on addressing issues arising out of technology (informatics,communications,biotechnology,etc.) or out of converting regulation-oriented legislation into service- or development-oriented legislation (the Police Act,the Companies Act,Mines & Minerals Act,etc.) either by amendment or replacement.
Given the increasingly complex and technology-driven world we live in,it is the quality rather than quantity of the legislation that ought to be of concern. (Given also the perception in some quarters that often legislation tends to give too much authority or discretion to the executive in the matter of framing subordinate legislation in the form of Rules.) The fact that parliament itself is devoting less time to consideration of legislation is really not the issue. The issue is: how much time and effort are department-related committees devoting to examining bills introduced in parliament? How much expertise can they access to ensure that the legislation meets certain basic standards,takes into account international best practices and comprehensively addresses issues relating to technology?
What is important,therefore,is that the procedures around department-related standing committees ensure their evolution into effective instruments for the proper management of the legislative framework. I have argued on these pages in favour of re-orienting department-related committees into subject-related committees to ensure seamless coverage and also to allow them access to expertise,to create reports of lasting value. This will of course,mean changes in the rules of procedure governing the committees. A logical corollary of this change,if effected,would be for such committees to go into the existing legislation on the subject and make general recommendations on its appropriateness and possible changes. Parliament is not only the forum for framing of legislation; it is also the most appropriate forum for evaluating its effectiveness.
As the Ides of March come,the department-related committees will go about the humdrum business of examining the demands for grants and annual reports of Central ministries. The question is; what,after the Ides of March are gone?
The writer was Joint Secretary of the Rajya Sabha from 1998-2002.
Share
