Can reporting to the House be made obligatory?

Some of them can say, of course, it is mandatory for each Standing Committee. While many of them may disagree on the logic that the Rule is somewhere specific but somewhere not. As the Rules clearly state some committees such as (a) Select Committee on Bills (Rule 228), (b) Committee on Petitions (Rule 232), (c) Committee on Public Accounts (Rule 233), (d) Committee on Public Undertakings (Rule 238), (e) Committee on Privileges (Rule 241), (f) Committee on Government Assurances (Rule 244), (g) Committee on Rules of Procedure (Rule 265) shall report to the House. But Committee on Estimates (Rule 235 & 237) which may report to the House though it is not obligatory. And none of the Rules specifically mentions that Standing Committees on Ministries shall have to report to the House.

However, reporting to the House may be a healthy practice. But to make Standing Committees on Ministries report to the House obligatory has to be clearly stipulated in the related Rules. In this regard let us go back to 22nd of July, 1974 when the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament became effective. As per Rule 246 of that time, it was clearly stipulated that each new Parliament as soon as possible appoint 11 Standing Committees such as on (1) Transport and Communications; (2) Food and Agriculture; (3) Flood Control, Water Resources, Irrigation, etc; (4) Education, Cultural Affairs and Sports; (5) Labour and Social Welfare; (6) Jute, Jute Products and Jute Trade; (7) Local Government and Co-operatives; (8) Health and Family Planning; (9) Trade and Commerce; (10) Forests, Fisheries and Livestock; and (11) Industries, to examine any matter referred to it by the Parliament under the provision of Article 76 of the Constitution. As per the then Rule 248 the prime responsibilities of each such Committee were to examine any Bill or other matter that may be referred to it by the Parliament. That the responsibility of the Committee was to prepare report on Bills after scrutiny. As regards the Bill, the Committee report was required for the resolution of the House.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

In the 4th Parliament the jurisdiction of the Rule 246 was extended by incorporating Standing Committee on each Ministry and that subject to the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and any other law, Standing Committee on each Ministry may (a) examine draft Bills and other legislative proposals; (b) review enforcement of laws and propose measures for such enforcement. There it is found that Standing Committee report was required for consideration of legislation.

In the 5th Parliament, the jurisdiction of Rule 248 regarding functions of the Committee was extended to Committees constituted under the provision of Rule 246 and 247. The Committee on Ministry was empowered to review the works relating to a Ministry falling within its jurisdiction, to inquire or examine any activity or irregularity and serious complaint/lapses which the Committee deemed fit. The Committee could inquire any matter within its jurisdiction and make recommendations thereon.

In consistence with the change of Rule 248 a significant change has been made in Rule 247 during the 7th Parliament. Formerly the Minister-in-Charge was the ex-officio Chairman of the Ministry related Standing Committee but the amendment made by the 7th Parliament created the opportunity for a general Member to be the Chairman. Now the issue is whether the Report will only be tabled in the House or also discussed on the floor of the House. If the recommendation made by the Committee is stipulated in the report and requires resolution of the House, then it should be discussed on the floor of the House. And without discussion only tabling the report in the House will not carry any meaning.

Another question is, how often Committees on Ministries should report to the House, does every recommendation need to be brought to the notice of the House? There could be different opinions. Some may say the recommendations, irrespective of their nature and number, should be brought to the notice of the House. While many others may not agree, because all recommendations taken by Committees need not be brought to the notice of the House.

If all recommendations made by Committee are brought to the notice of the House it will take much time, which may jeopardise the functioning of Committee as well as of the House. The main objective of the Committee which is to ensure Executive's accountability to the House will be obstructed.

There is an observation that if the executing agency feels that some of the recommendations made by the Committee cannot be considered due to some legal bindings, policy implications, shortage of budgetary allocations or lack of public interest, then it can come back to the Committee again and clearly describe the limitations. Thereafter if it is deemed to the Committee that the recommendation on its own requires resolution of the House for implementation, then it can be brought to the notice of the House and the report regarding the issue can be discussed in the House.

The issue, how often a Committee may report to the House, in my observation should not be confined within a timeframe; the necessity will determine the time. And it should be the prerogative of the Committee how often it should report to the House.

As the Parliament and its Committees are guided by the Rules of Procedure, all concerned with the Committee are duty bound to follow that. However, it may be concluded that Rule 248 of the Rules of Procedure can be modified by adding the provision for reporting.

Kibria Mazumdar is Committee Officer, Bangladesh Parliament Secretariat.