Opinion The MPs you don’t see

However,the truth of the matter is that while drama and political theatrics are a colourful part of our parliamentary system,our Parliament and our MPs actually conduct a great deal of serious work during discussions in various committees of Parliament where legislation,demands for grants and major issues of policy are discussed in great detail. The greatest asset of the committee system in our Parliament is the general atmosphere of harmony in which the committees function,usually in a spirit of serious thought and considered consensus. It’s a great pity that the Indian public is mostly unaware of the commendable work that is actually being carried out by the various committees of Parliament.

As chair of the standing committee on law,justice,personnel and public grievances,it was my privilege to submit the report on the controversial Women’s Reservation Bill. In our committee,we had heated discussions,but the discussions always shed more light than heat. We heard the evidence of a large cross-section of stakeholders,and ultimately presented a report to Parliament,strongly recommending the passage of the bill,but two of our members added notes of dissent. The point was,our committee succeeded in achieving what Parliament as a larger body could not do,namely to rationally discuss the issue and arrive at a conclusion (which included contrary points of view).

On issues like the appointment of judges or judicial accountability,or the filling up of vacancies of SC posts in government service,the degree of unanimity in the committee is quite spectacular. Therefore,in this general atmosphere of gloom about the nature of our parliamentary system,the public needs to understand a little about the largely successful functioning of the committee system in Parliament.

The work done by Parliament is not only varied in nature,but considerable in volume. The time at its disposal is limited. It cannot,therefore,give close consideration to all the legislative and other matters that come up before it. A good deal of its business is,therefore,transacted by what are called parliamentary committees. Parliamentary committees are of two kinds: ad hoc committees and standing committees. Ad hoc committees are appointed for a specific purpose and they cease to exist when they finish the task assigned to them and submit a report. Core committees which keep Parliament functioning are,naturally,the Business Advisory Committees of both Houses,which decide the work to be transacted by Parliament,and other House committees which play a crucial role in monitoring the functioning of the executive,notably the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Public Undertakings,among others.

A full-fledged system of departmentally related standing committees (originally 17,now increased to 24) came into being in April 1993. These committees cover under their jurisdiction all the ministries/ departments of the Government of India and their functions are: consideration of demands for grants; examination of bills referred to them by the chairman of Rajya Sabha or the speaker of Lok Sabha; consideration of annual reports; consideration of national,basic,long-term policy documents presented to the House and referred to the committee by the chairman,Rajya Sabha,or the speaker,Lok Sabha,as the case may be. These committees do not consider matters of day-to-day administration of the concerned ministries/ departments.

The standing committee system is a path-breaking endeavour for parliamentary surveillance over administration. The committees are also expected to provide necessary direction,guidance and inputs for broad policy formulations and in achievement of the long-term national perspective by the government. They sit during,and between recesses of,Parliament,and examine in detail the functioning of ministries. Their reports are tabled,and while not binding upon government,they have immense value in terms of their recommendations. The most fundamental benefit of these committees is that while they consist of MPs from both Houses and all parties,they do not generally function on party lines,and there is no voting,only provisions for notes of dissent. There is therefore immense scope in these committees for individual members to make contributions in terms of policy and legislation.

Generally,MPs make an honest effort to ensure that the working of the ministry be as effective as possible. In most cases,the working of the committees is a heartening feature of our parliamentary system,because MPs do hold shared views,irrespective of party affiliation,and do tend to achieve consensus on a wide variety of issues. The standing committees should,and do in fact,look upon the executive government in the light of a partner in ensuring accountability,transparency and effective implementation of policy and legislation. However,it is my considered opinion that the bureaucracy is a determined roadblock in the collection and free flow of information. Since ministers are not generally summoned before committees,it is usually senior bureaucrats who present the views and working of the ministry to the committee,and more often than not the information provided is obfuscatory and dense in nature,mostly tending to be a defensive and supercilious presentation on the topic at hand. In other words,a presentation of the annual report of the ministry.

In these circumstances,it becomes difficult for MPs to sift through the chaff,and many MPs have felt that it would be useful to have outside experts available. In fact,experts are sometimes invited to give their views. However,the final problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of the recommendations are not implemented by any government,thereby rendering the valuable work done by the committee rather pointless. A triumph of red tape and bureaucracy over elective and participatory democracy.

The writer,a spokesperson for the Congress,is a member of Rajya Sabha express@expressindia.com