Accountability Role of the Parliament:

Do the Individual MPs Matter?

M Jashim Ali Chowdhury

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

(Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chittagong &

Former Lecturer, Department of Law and Justice, Metropolitan University, Sylhet)

Published in Ain Darpon, Metropolitan University, Sylhet, Bangladesh, December 2019 at pp 16-19  

Introduction

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. Non-governmental private members from government and opposition parties alike have very limited control over parliamentary agenda. Legislation, budget and scrutiny functions of parliament are primarily government controlled and party dominated. However, the post-World War II modernisation process within the UK House of Commons has yielded some innovative devices that empower individual MPs to question an otherwise reluctant executive. Parliament of Bangladesh, however, presents a rather gloomy and non-progressive trend in this regard.

Private Member Tools in the House of Commons

Standing Order 14 of the UK House of Commons reserves 20 opposition days and 35 backbench days in every session. Out of 20 Opposition Days, the leader of the main opposition party decides the agenda for 17 days. Leader of the second largest opposition and other parties, if there be any, combined would fix agenda for rest of the 3 days. Government, however, has the power to allot the date on which the opposition days will be scheduled. Once a date is scheduled, the government traditionally would allow the motion - usually critical of government actions or policies - to be discussed and put to voting and then proposes its amendment to the motion that are usually passed by majority. There are however precedents of passing consensual motions. Once a motion is passed, the government responds, through a Ministerial Statement before the House usually within 12 weeks. Such statement may explain any corrective action that may be taken by the government.  Further debate or discussion may ensure from such statement.

The House of Commons Backbench Business Committee oversees the agenda for 35 Backbench Business Days. Debate on at least 27 of those days will be held in the House and the rest might be held in the Westminster Hall. Private Member Bills selected by the Backbench Business Committee would dominate most of those 27 days. Backbench day debates may also include general debate on a substantive motion in the main Chamber or the Westminster Hall for 90 minutes, 180 minutes or even for the whole day. Parliamentary Select Committee reports on various issues are launched during those days. On occasions, the Backbench Business Committee itself may decide upon topics that may be discussed in the Chamber or Westminster Hall.  Doing this, the Backbench Committee ensures that important issues are not ‘kept off the agenda because they were uncomfortable for the government’.[1]

Westminster Hall Debate is an innovation of the British Parliament where the Deputy Speaker chairs. Members may raise issues and ask questions. A responsible minister of the government would reply to the concerns. Any MP interested in the topic may participate the debate. Debates take place on Monday through Thursday. Monday is reserved for debate on public petition to the parliament which are selected by the Petition Committee. Thursday debates are requested either by individual MPs or the Backbench Business Committee. Part of Thursday debate is allocated to select committee reports sponsored by the Liaison Committee. Individual MPs wishing to initiate debate would serve notice to the Speaker’s office and topics will be chosen through ballot. Until 2010, Westminster Hall debate would take place after adjournment of the main chamber. Since 2010, the Westminster Hall debates are rather considered an extension of the Chamber. As an extension of the House, it considers motions 'That the House has considered [a specific matter]'. If vote upon or amendment to the motion is required, the matter goes back to the main Chamber and a full-scale formal debate may ensue. Usually, the members and ministers settle the matter in an amiable way within the Westminster Hall.

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). EDMs are scarcely debated in the floor. Its purpose is rather symbolic. Members or group of members express their independent opinion over pertinent issues which may signal their dissent from overall party standing. MPs also try to generate debate on issues of interest to them and their constituencies.[2] MPs submit the early day motions to enhance their visibility, expertise and career prospect as well.[3]

Individual MPs also have the option to 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 permits individual MPs to request Emergency Debate on any matter of urgent importance. Notice for such a debate may be given anytime during the sitting and it is the Speaker’s discretion to allow or disallow the notice. If allowed, the concerned member would make a short statement after question time, urgent question or ministerial statement, if there is any, each day. The application then would be submitted to the House. If the House agrees a full debate usually follows the next day.

Like the Emergency Debate, Urgent Question is an important individual tool. Urgent Questions, once accepted by the Speaker, obliges a concerned minister to come to the Parliament within the day and answer to the House’s satisfaction. The last Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow extensively permitted Urgent Questions and thereby took the parliament’s power of scrutiny to a new height.

Private Member Tools in Jatya Sangsad

Ours is avowedly a Westminster parliament. Legislative and budgetary process are government controlled. Scrutiny function of parliament is confined within routinised committee works, committee reports and discussion of governmental policies during general discussion on the President’s Annual Address and Financial Statement i.e., the Budget. Apart from these executive-held devices, the individual government and opposition party members may ask parliamentary questions, move motions for adjournment, half-an-hour discussion, motion for short discussion call-attention motion and private member resolutions. While parliamentary questions and adjournment motions are rooted in the Westminster, call attention motion, short discussion and Half-an-hour discussion, are the innovations of the Indian parliament.[4]

Parliamentary Question session, including the Prime Minister’s question has failed to generate substantial accountability for different procedural and attitudinal issues surrounding our parliamentary practice. Though there is a scope of asking short notice and supplementary questions, government have faced little difficulties in tackling the toothless bite of the MPs. Speakers have shown a traditional inertia to admit short notice questions. Requirement of longer notice and ability of the ministers to avoid answering uneasy questions or even answer in very vague or general terms frustrates the very purpose of accountability.[5] As per the Rules of Procedure (RoP), regular Parliamentary Questions require at least 15 days’ notice. Short Notice Questions require at least five days of such notice. That again is subject to the consent of a minister concerned to take and answer the question at such a short notice.[6] Compared to the UK House of Common’s device of Urgent Question, ours is hardly an urgent one. MPs’ scope to address the pressing need of the day through parliamentary questioning is therefore farfetched.

There is however a back-up device in Bangladesh. MPs may demand a Half-an-hour Discussion arising from a recent past parliamentary question answered by a minister. 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.[7] Unfortunately, Half-an-hour discussions are rarely allowed.[8]

Lacking the power to inject something in parliamentary agenda in any other way, the opposition parties have traditionally tried with Motion for Adjournment of parliamentary business to discuss matters of recent and urgent public importance.[9] Such motions, however, scarcely got admitted or passed in the House.[10] Moved two hours before every days’ business, the government usually considers the adjournment motions as wilful disruption of parliamentary agenda.

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. There are however numerical limits of three on total Call Attention Motions that may be raised and discussed in a single sitting day. Also, one member is not allowed more than one call attention motion in a given sitting day. Most importantly, there cannot be any instant debate on the statement of minister made in reply to such motion.[11] While the role of Call Attention Motion in the First Jatya Sangsad (1973-1975) is lauded as being successful in examining the conduct of the government,[12] it is not clear how far the assurances given or explanation offered by the ministers were actually acted upon later.[13]

Individual MPs may also request Short Discussion on such matters of urgent public importance.[14] Also, the members may move Private Member Resolutions[15] to address and discuss important issues of public policy and government accountability. Such a resolution, requiring ten days of advance notice,[16] may demand government actions or/and support in appropriate cases to address the concern raised. The responsible minister of the government is by rules required to inform the parliament of any government action that may have been taken in furtherance of a private member resolution passed by it.[17]

All of the individual tools discussed above are constrained by numerous procedural, technical and attitudinal hurdles. Requirement of advance notice for moving most of these motions are inordinately long. While questions and call-attention motions are allocated time in each sitting day except on during general discussion over the budget, half-an-hour discussion and short discussion on matters of urgent public importance are allotted twice a week.[18] One particularly hard qualification of the Short Discussion is a requirement of the Speaker consulting the Leader of the House, i.e., the Prime Minister.[19] MPs are usually not habituated to ask questions critical of the party and government. Most of the parliamentary questions and call attention motions usually highlight issues of local or constituency concerns. There are also evidence of the opposition parties abusing the adjournment motions and short discussion motions for the purpose of mere political point scoring.[20]

Concluding Remark

Admittedly the politics and political process in Bangladesh is highly personalised, centralised and patrimonial. The obnoxious culture of clientelism and illiberal approach to governance have resulted in handicapped accountability role of a seriously incapacitated parliament. While the vice of the controversial article 70 prevents conscious dissent of individual MPs during the government businesses of parliament, private member tools to initiate debate and scrutiny in parliament, if given a chance, could have contributed in making up some of the injuries resulting from the assault of article 70. 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. Specially when we call ours a Westminster parliament.

---

[1] David H. Foster, “Going ‘Where Angels Fear to Tread’: How Effective was the Backbench Business Committee in the 2010−2012 Parliamentary Session?”, Parliamentary Affairs (2013), pp. 116-134.

[2] Guy P. Nason, “Early Day Motions: exploring Backbench opinion during 1997–2000”, (2001), Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.8.3930&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Last Accessed on 22/11/2019).

[3] Michael Kellermann, “Sponsoring Early Day Motions in the British House of Commons as a Response to Electoral Vulnerability” Political Science Research and Methods, Vol 1, No. 2, (2013) pp. 263-280.

[4] M.N. Kaul, Parliamentary Institutions and Procedures, National Publishing House, New Delhi (1979).

[5] For brief idea on Parliamentary Questions and Prime Minister’s Question please see – M Jashim Ali Chowdhury, Parliamentary Questions in Bangladesh, The Daily Observer, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Page 18 (Law and Justice), July 20, 2019 Link: https://www.observerbd.com/details.php?id=208381 & M. Jashim Ali Chowdhury, Procedural modernisation of Prime Minister’s Question Time in Parliament, The Daily Observer, Page 18 (Law and Justice), Dhaka, Bangladesh, 09 November 2019, Link: https://www.observerbd.com/details.php?id=227294.

[6] The Rules of Procedure, Bangladesh Jatya Sangsad, Rule 59.

[7] Ibid, Rule 60.

[8] Nizam Ahmed and Aftab Ahmed, “The Quest for Accountability: Parliament and Public Administration in Bangladesh”, Asian Journal of Public Administration Vol. 18, No. 1 (JUNE 1996): 70-95 at p 79

[9] Supra note 6, Rule 61.

[10] Supra note 8.

[11] Supra note 6, Rule 71.

[12] See in general - M.M. Huq, "Call Attention Motions and Accountability of Public Corporations in the Bangladesh First Parliament," Dhaka University Studies Part-C, Vol 12 No 1 (1991), pp. 101-13.

[13] Supra note 8 at p 91.

[14] Supra note 6, Rule 68.

[15] Ibid, Rule 130.

[16] Ibid, Rule 131.

[17] Ibid, Rule 143.

[18] Ibid, Rules 68-69.

[19] ATM Obiadullah, “Institutionalisation of the Parliament in Bangladesh: A Study of Donor Intervention for reorganisation and Development”, Palgrove Macmillan, Singapore, (2019) at p 150.

[20] Nizam Ahmed, “Parliament‐executive relations in Bangladesh,” The Journal of Legislative Studies, Volume 3 No 4 (1997), pp. 70-91 at p 80.