No debate please, we’re MPs

The early adjournment of the budget session of Parliament continues to reinforce the poor image of Parliament and MPs in the public mind. The Lok Sabha worked for just 67 per cent...

The early adjournment of the budget session of Parliament continues to reinforce the poor image of Parliament and MPs in the public mind. The Lok Sabha worked for just 67 per cent of the scheduled time, which compares poorly against 93 per cent in the budget session last year. The situation in the Rajya Sabha was no different — the seniors worked for 58 per cent of the scheduled time compared to 103 per cent in the budget session last year. Lok Sabha worked for less than one hour on 10 days of the total 32 days that they actually met (as against their original schedule of 42 days for the budget session). While the first half of the budget session did not function properly mainly on account of the turmoil in Nandigram, the second half was plagued by numerous other issues.

A look at how legislative business was transacted in Lok Sabha during the session does not give much comfort either. Other than the Finance Bill, appropriations and ordinances, Parliament had listed a total of 13 bills for consideration and passing. Of these, four bills were passed. In addition, five other bills were passed. If this gives the impression that a reasonable amount of legislative business actually got done, consider this: on March 19, Lok Sabha passed three bills in a span of 10 minutes by voice vote amidst interruptions. This feat was repeated on May 14, when three more bills were passed with a ‘debate’ of four, three, and two minutes, respectively. No amount of defence that serious business gets done in committees can stand in the face of such complete lack of debate on the floor of Parliament. The government had listed several important bills such as the Seeds Bill, Forward Contracts (Regulation) Amendment Bill, and Communal Violence Bill for consideration and passing. None of these bills were brought up for discussion.

A quick look at some of the issues that led to disruptions in Parliament is also useful: Quattrocchi extradition, Nandigram deaths, location of Maritime University, Babli dam, Sheila Dikshit remarks issue, Setu Samudram, the Gujarat fake encounter episode, to name just a few. Of course, Parliament is a battleground for ideas. But that does not mean that decibel levels and wilful disruption can trump logic and reason. In a country of our size and diversity, it is not hard to imagine that there will be issues of varying degrees of urgency that will come up from time to time. Disrupting Parliament, instead of focusing on solving these issues, ends up preventing any cogent discussion.

Story continues below this ad

An analysis of the Resume of Work of Lok Sabha for the winter session indicates the priorities of our MPs. The Committee on Ethics did not meet at all, the Committee on the Absence of Members from the sittings of the House held one meeting which had an attendance of 53 per cent of the members of the committee, while the Joint Committee on Installation of Portraits/Statutes of National Leaders and Parliamentarians in Parliament House Complex had an attendance rate of 80 per cent — the highest of all committees.

Another instance sadly exemplifies how our Parliament keeps the commitments it makes to itself. On April 27, the Business Advisory Committee of the Rajya Sabha decided on two things, among others. First, they may meet on Saturday May 5, to make up for holiday they declared for themselves on April 30. Second, they may sit up to 6 pm and beyond for the remaining part of the session. A few days later, the same committee recommended that the sitting scheduled for Saturday may be cancelled. Over the 11 remaining days before the session ended abruptly, the Rajya Sabha sat beyond the scheduled closing time of 5 pm only on four days. On the other seven days, they worked for an average of less than an hour and a half.

Senior leaders across the political spectrum have lamented the poor functioning of Parliament in this session. What is more tragic than the actual poor functioning of the House is that despite this behaviour being repeated over and over again, Members of Parliament have not found a meaningful way of addressing this critical issue.

Parliament has an oversight responsibility of the executive. To their credit, the Parliament website and the live telecast make the proceedings observable. But we are still saddled with the millennia old question posed by the Roman poet Juvenal: Who shall watch the watchers themselves?

The writer is director, PRS Legislative Research New Delhi