In Search of Parliamentary Reform: 

Scope of Private Members’ Initiatives

M Jashim Ali Chowdhury

Doctoral Candidate (Legislative Studies), King’s College London

Published in Daily Observer, Law and Justice, Dhaka Bangladesh, 21 December 2019 p. 18

Link: https://www.observerbd.com/details.php?id=234503

The Westminster parliament is admittedly a cabinet controlled one. Government’s grip over the Order Paper – the daily schedule of parliamentary business - is a rule. Private members’ chance of agenda setting is rather an exception. While the accountability function of parliament depends much on non-government and opposition activism, our parliament is trailing much behind the modernisation discourse across commonwealth parliaments. Even within the UK House of Commons, various extra-governmental avenues have evolved during the post-World War II era that successfully minimise the adverse impact of cabinet dictatorship within parliament. Parliament of Bangladesh, however, poses a rather gloomy and non-progressive stance in this regard.

Standing Order 14 of the UK House of Commons reserves 20 opposition and 35 backbench days every session. On the Opposition Days, leaders of the opposition parties would decide the issues to be discussed in the House. Government, however, has the power to specify the exact date on which the debates will be scheduled. Once a date is scheduled, a motion - usually critical of government actions or policies - will be debated and voted upon first. Government amendment to the motion will be considered thereafter. Purpose of the tradition is to allow the opposition’s motion a full pledged debate.  

Agenda for the 35 Backbench Business Days are settled by the Backbench Business Committee. Different private member bills and topics chosen by the Backbench Committee and select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee would be discussed in the House or in the Westminster Hall. Backbench days ensure that important but uncomfortable issues are not kept off the agenda by the government.

Westminster Hall Debate is an informal extension of the House of Commons that would reduce pressure upon parliamentary time and make sure that questions and concerns of individual members do not pass unattended. Issues raised by individual MPs, public petitions and select committee reports are debated in the Hall without voting. A responsible minister of the government would reply to the concerns. Any other MP interested in the topic may participate the debate. In case a need for voting arises, the matter is referred to the House. 

Apart from these collective tools, individual members may submit non-binding internal petitions to the House of Commons. Members’ petitions are known as Early Day Motions (EDM). These are scarcely debated in the floor. Still they have a very strong signalling purpose when members or group of members express their independent opinion that may be clearly different from their government or party policy. A MP may also raise issues of concern in the Half-an-hour Adjournment Debate at the end of each day’s session. Standing Order 24 of the UK House of Commons permit individual MPs to request Emergency Debate on any matter of urgent importance. If allowed by the Speaker, the application then would be submitted to the House. If the House agrees, a full debate usually follows the next day. A similar tool of activism is Urgent Question. If accepted by the Speaker, it would oblige the concerned minister to come to the Parliament within the day and answer to the House’s satisfaction. Recently retiring Speaker John Bercow extensively permitted Urgent Questions and thereby took the parliament’s power of scrutiny to a new height.

Compared to the House of Commons, MPs in Jatya Sangsad have some traditional tools like parliamentary questions, motions for adjournment, half-an-hour discussion, short discussion, call-attention and private member resolutions. MPs’ chance to address the pressing needs of time through these archaic devices remain farfetched.

Parliamentary Questions have failed to generate substantial accountability for different procedural and attitudinal issues surrounding our parliamentary practice. Though there is a scope of asking short notice questions and supplementary questions, governments have faced little difficulties in tackling the toothless bites of questioning. Requirement of longer notice and ability of the ministers to avoid answering uneasy questions or answer in very vague or general terms frustrates the very purpose of accountability. Compared to the UK House of Common’s Urgent Question device, ours is hardly an urgent one.

If a Member of Parliament feels that the question and answer to it involves a matter of public importance, which needs further factual clarification, s/he may move a motion for Half-an-Hour Discussion on the issue. Unfortunately, these discussions are rarely allowed. Lacking the power to inject something in parliamentary agenda in any other way, the opposition parties have tried Motions for Adjournment of parliamentary business to discuss matters of recent and urgent public importance. Moved two hours before every days’ business, the government usually considers the adjournment motions as disruption of parliamentary agenda. Opposition parties are also sometimes accused of using it as political point scoring show rather than as a sincere commitment to accountability. 

Individual MPs may also request Short Discussion on such matters of urgent public importance. One particularly hard qualification of the Short Discussion is the requirement of the Speaker consulting the Leader of the House, i.e., the Prime Minister. Individual MPs have a scope to move a Call Attention Motion. Once admitted, the sponsoring MP would be given a fixed time, usually two to three minutes, to discuss and bring to attention of a minister, any matter of urgent public importance. Minister concerned may reply but there is no guarantee of a follow up debate or questioning over the issue.

The members may move Private Member Resolutions to address and discuss important issues of public policy and government accountability. Such a resolution, requiring ten days of advance notice, may demand government actions or/and support to address the concern raised. Absent the government endorsement, success rate for private member resolutions are unfortunately very slim.

Compared to the House of Commons, individual government and opposition party members in Bangladesh have very limited role in agenda setting. Frustration over the continuous under performance of parliament in its accountability function therefore needs be addressed by looking into this area of parliamentary reform. Individual tools that evolved in the UK Parliament during its post-World War II era of modernisation could constitute a persuasive jurisprudence of reform for our parliament. Particularly when we call ours a Westminster parliament.