By Inder Jit
(Released on 20 March 1984)
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Mr. Bal Ram Jakhar deserves a hand. Seven weeks ago, he told me that he had decided to initiate some overdue action for the reform of Parliament, a subject on which some of us have been crusading for long. Specifically, he said: “I have decided to make Parliament more effective in regard to the financial accountability of the administration. I feel we should switch over to the Committee system to scrutinize the budget proposals carefully. I have asked our new Secretary-General (Dr. Subhash Kashyap) to formulate proposals on the subject for consideration of the Rules Committee”. Delighted at the development, I shared the happy news with the readers in my column entitled: New Teeth for Parliament. I saw in Mr. Jakhar’s decision “a glimmer of hope for our Parliament — at long last.” Leading Parliamentarians and other experts welcomed the news. But hardboiled cynics expressed serious doubts, wiser by past experience. Some even viewed it as no more than “a gimmick”.
Mr Jakhar has been as good as his word. Specific proposals were drawn up for what are proposed to be called “Budget Committees” by the new Secretary-General, Dr Kashyap, within a fortnight of my talk with the Speaker — and finalised by Mr Jakhar soon thereafter. These proposals were presented to the Rules Committee of the Lok Sabha on March 7 for its consideration and acceptance. The Speaker was eager to implement the proposals in this budget session itself. Happily, the Prime Minister, Mrs Gandhi, appears to have welcomed the idea in principle once it was clarified that Parliament and the proposed Committees would not meet simultaneously. But, horror of horrors, the Opposition leaders seem to have put the proverbial spoke in the wheel. They welcomed the idea of the Committees. Not a few have been agitating for these over the past three decades. Unfortunately, however, they are reported to have said in so many words: “what is the hurry? This is the last year of the current Lok Sabha. Let the new House decide for itself next year!”
The Speaker’s proposal in essence suggests the creation of 11 ad hoc Budget Committees “on an experimental basis” to ensure a fuller scrutiny of the Demands for Grants of all the Ministries and Departments before these are put to vote in the House. This is intended to save the time of the House and also make the Government more accountable to Parliament. Each Committee, it is proposed, should correspond to a Ministry or Department or a group of Ministries or Departments of the Government of India. Each Committee will have 45 members, reflecting as far as possible the partywise complexion of the House. Every member is expected to be a member of one of the Committees. Members and Chairmen of the Committees may be appointed by the Speaker, allocation being made on the choice of priorities indicated by the members. The Minister or Ministers concerned are proposed to be associated as ex-officio member or members. The committee would scrutinise in depth the Demands for Grants and report on changes in the estimates, if any, without increasing the total budgeted amount of any Demand.
Provisions for any new policies of programmes and significant variations, specially increases over previous years, are to receive particular attention with an overall eye on the need for economy and efficiency and relationship between expenditure and needs. The Committees are proposed to be set up by a resolution of the House after the general debate on the Budget and they may become functus officio after making their reports to the House. The House may adjourn for three to four weeks recess after the general debate on the Budget. The Committees would use this period for their scrutiny and report to the House. To begin with, Committees discussions are proposed to be based on brief background memoranda provided by the Government Departments and Ministries. (Senior Government officials concerned may be present during the sittings to assist the Committees in their deliberations). After the Committees report, the House may confine itself to discussing the cut motions in regard to certain selected Demands (selection may be made by the Business Advisory Committee) and voting on the Demands.
The proposed scheme of Budget Committees also goes into the question of reporting of the proceedings in the Press and of record of the Committee meetings. It recommends that “Committee meetings may not be open to the Press”. (This is in accordance with the present practice in such existing bodies as the Public Accounts Committee.) The proposal disfavours verbatim record of the proceedings but suggests that minutes may be kept. It wants the committee reports to the House “to be precise and to the point”. At the same time, the proposal has gone into the question of the Railway Budget. It recommends that “one of the Committees may be separately devoted to considering the Railway Budget” and schedule of general discussion and voting on Demands may be suitably modified. The rules that apply to the existing financial committees are proposed to apply to the Budget Committees as well. Finally, the scheme recommends necessary amendments to the rules along aforementioned lines for setting up the Budget Committees – “possibly with effect from this Budget session itself.”
The Speaker’s proposal in essence suggests the creation of 11 ad hoc Budget Committees “on an experimental basis” to ensure a fuller scrutiny of the Demands for Grants of all the Ministries and Departments before these are put to vote in the House.
The Speaker’s proposals take full advantage of the developments at Westminster and several other countries. In fact, the Treasury and Civil Service Committee in Britain discusses the budget closely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer before it is taken up by the Commons. Pre-vote scrutiny of the Budget proposals, according to the speaker’s proposals, is in vogue in Australia, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan. In Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, France, Italy, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland also the Budget is examined first by Committees and then by the House. This is not surprising since parliamentary scrutiny of finance is at present inadequate and patchy. What is more, time and again, the House is unable to consider the demands of a number of ministries and funds are sanctioned without any scrutiny. Last year alone, the Demands of only eight Union Ministries with an overall budget of Rs 13,000 crores were discussed and voted. The Demands of some 15 ministries and eight departments totalling Rs 10,000 crores, an all-time record, were guillotined and voted without any discussion.
The proposed Budget Committees will, however, touch only one part of Parliament’s work, even if it is an important part. Much more will have to be done to ensure Parliament’s effective control over the executive, as agreed at a seminar on the Working of Parliament organised by the Rajaji Institute in September 1981. (The seminar, in which I had the privilege to participate, was attended by some 50 Leading MPS, MLAs, jurists and journalists.) The wide range of activities of the state and the complexities of administration, it was agreed, had thrown up new difficulties in providing effective democratic overseeing of the activities of administration. The seminar, therefore, felt that parliamentary scrutiny could be strengthened by making a beginning with seven subject-based committees which would cover the entire gamut of the administration. These could comprise a committee on political affairs, a committee on economic affairs, a committee on industry, trade and commerce, a committee on food and agriculture, a committee on transport and communications, a committee on education and social welfare and one on science and technology.
Agreement was also reached at the seminar that a number of other committees could be constituted meaningfully. There could, for instance, be a legislative committee to process legislative work and meet the general criticism that legislation is often rushed through Parliament without adequate preparation. Then we could have a Constitution Committee of Parliament to look into any proposal that might be brought forward to amend the Constitution. Clearly such amendments should not be treated like ordinary pieces of legislation. No less important is the work of planning — from Yojana Bhawan to its implementation at the grassroots. The seminar felt that for this purpose a standing Plan Committee of Parliament could be established and the planning process raised above party levels. The Plan Committee could be established with subject-oriented study groups aided by experts. The study groups would submit internal study reports to the Plan Committee based on operational research in performance evaluation against physical targets. The Plan Committee would in turn submit its annual report to Parliament and thereby ensure credibility for the entire planning process.
The House is unable to consider the remands of a number of ministries and funds are sanctioned without any scrutiny. Last year alone, the Demands of only eight Union Ministries with an overall budget of Rs 13,000 crores were discussed and voted. The Demands of some 15 ministries and eight departments totalling Rs 10,000 crores, an all-time record, were guillotined and voted without any discussion.
It is indeed a pity that the Opposition leaders have not grabbed with both hands the proposals put forward by Mr Jakhar in his capacity as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rules Committee — even if these were mooted on an experimental basis. The pity is all the greater considering that more and more countries are turning towards the committee system. The mother of Parliaments at Westminster itself has now opted for greater parliamentary control over the Government and administration through twelve new committees. Top British leaders, including Mrs Margaret Thatcher, hold the view that the growing volume and complexity of government can no longer be scrutinised effectively by the old process of debate on the floor of the House. What is worse, few Governments are willing to change even a coma in the House as face and prestige are involved. Fortunately, there is still time for the Opposition to take a fresh look at the proposals and see if something can still be worked out. What may happen in the next Lok Sabha is anybody’s guess. Let a good beginning be made here and now. — INFA