Union interparlementaire inter-parliamentary union
Mr Vladimir SVINAREV (Russian Federation)
Download 469.13 Kb.
|
Mr Vladimir SVINAREV (Russian Federation) presented the following contribution: “Since 2002, the Council of Federation is a full-time professional institution. The CoF members are elected by the relevant legislative bodies, while the heads of the Russian Federation constituent entities are nominated by the executive branch and endorsed by the legislative assemblies in the respective RF constituent entities. The new federal law that sets out the procedures governing the formation of the Upper Chamber will take effect in January 2011. As of next year, none but the members of the RF regional and municipal legislative (representative) bodies elected by the citizens in their respective constituencies are eligible to represent their respective regions in the Council of Federation. In contrast to the procedures of the State Duma, the Lower Chamber of the RF Parliament, the rotation of the CoF members is not a one-time event but an ongoing continual process. Therefore, the CoF Staff has to interact with the new CoF members on a continuous basis. The CoF members enjoy an all-around assistance and support rendered by the CoF Staff right after their induction. 1. Each newly elected (appointed) CoF member is introduced to the CoF and CoF Staff procedures receiving instructions how to use the voting system installed in the Upper Chamber sessions hall. 2. The CoF Steering Commission introduces new CoF members to the procedures applied to set up CoF committees and commissions and explains their functions to them. 3. The new CoF member meets the CoF Head of Staff for an introductory briefing. 4. The Council of Federation organisational structure and procedures as well as the functions of the CoF Staff are described in a reference brochure that we have prepared for CoF members’ information based on the Federal Law "On Status of Member of the Council of Federation and Status of Deputy of the State Duma in the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation" and the CoF Standing Orders. All other reference and support information materials are also made available to the CoF members. 5. We advise the new members on the rules and standards that govern funding of their professional functions performance and provision of adequate working environment including social benefits as established by the federal law. A new CoF member who has no accommodation in Moscow is provided with a comfortable apartment for the term of office. The CoF members and their next of kin are entitled to health care services provided in specialised medical treatment facilities. The senators and their families receive out-patient, emergency and home health care services, and, if and when required, in-patient medical services. A new CoF member is provided with an office located in the Upper House building complete with office furniture, equipment, means of communication and an official chauffeur-driven car. 6. The CoF Staff job is to facilitate functions of the CoF members and their assistants as well who are advised on the specifics of the CoF Staff civil service regulations. It will be noted that the senators may employ assistants providing services both at their Upper House offices and in the senators’ respective constituencies. The CoF Staff compensates costs associated with the services provided by the assistants in the constituencies. The assistants are provided with training, professional advice, reference and information materials; participate in the exchange of experience programmes arranged by the CoF Staff. Our core function is an all-round facilitation of the senator functions performance, and no efforts are being spared to streamline this line of our activities.” Mr Ghulam Hassan GRAN (Afghanistan) presented the following contribution: “ORIENTATION PROGRAM FOR THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE WOLESI JIRGA (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF AFGHANISTAN
The main purpose for conducting orientation programs is to acquaint newly elected and re-elected members with their new roles as people’s representatives. During the program, members will be given orientation about the functions of Parliament and their roles in processing legislation, conducting oversight, and their responsibilities as representatives of the people. Orientation program offers the opportunity to make new members aware of parliamentary processes and the internal procedures they will adhere to. In broad terms, orientation programs serve the following:
The General Secretariat of the Wolesi Jirga plays a key role in the Orientation of new and returning members. This includes the planning and actual conduct of the orientation program. The Secretariat determines appropriate content and subjects to be discussed during the orientation program. Information packages relating to the Practices and Procedures of the House are prepared. members are also supplied with the internal rules of the Administration of Parliament, including the administrative services availed for their convenience. The planning process for the Orientation is particularly important as the General Secretariat has to ensure that all logistical arrangements are put in place in time for a successful orientation program. This is important as the orientation program, for new members particularly is their first engagement with Parliament. The orientation program is especially useful for the new members, as most of the members will not be familiar with either the roles and functions of parliament, or the internal rules and procedures for conducting parliamentary business. Orientation programs are especially useful in a country like Afghanistan, where election to the National Assembly is not based on political parties. Members elected to the National Assembly therefore do not always represent a given party or organized position but most times their individual viewpoints. Party discipline which characterizes the conduct of members in parliamentary systems is not always present in Afghanistan. The Orientation program serves as an opportunity to equip members with skills on how to put forward their messages in a manner that is respectful of parliamentary democracy. Further, Orientation programs are important in that they recognize that members do not all have the same level of knowledge and education. They provide an opportunity for those members with limited information about parliamentary procedures to obtain more information which will serve them better in conducting their work. Since the National Assembly of Afghanistan is a young parliament, having only been re-established five years ago after more than 30 years of conflict, orientation programs are important in ensuring the growth and development of the capacity of the members of the institution.
Content of the Orientation Program 16th Term of the National Assembly of Afghanistan 2010
The Abovementioned will be conducted by:
Expectations and Results After the completion of the orientation program, members of the Wolesi Jirga will be acquainted with the following:
Challenges:
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, opened the debate to the floor. Dr V.K. AGNIHOTRI (India) said that there were two types of MPs in his country: those who knew nothing and wanted to know nothing, and those who knew too much. The second category was harder to deal with than the first. There were partial elections to the Indian Parliament every two years, so new Members to train very often. As well as an induction programme, specific modules were organised on topics such as committee work. Some training was open to MPs’ staff. Mr Heiki SIBUL (Estonia) said that his Parliament dealt with training very much as in Zambia. He asked about the timing of courses in Zambia. Mr André GAGNON (Canada) said that surveys of Canadian Members showed that they were more interested in practical and financial issues, such as office space and staffing, than in the running of Parliament. Training sessions had been held on work-life balance, with presentations for spouses of current Members given by spouses of older Members and Members whose partners had left them due to overwork. At the beginning of a Parliament, there was general training for Members, with specific modules held later on issues such as parliamentary procedure, but attendance at these modules was quite low. He asked about attendance in the Zambian and Afghan context. Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, asked whether there was ever training for Members of Parliament on the role of international organisations such as the IPU and UNDP. Mr Carlos HOFFMANN CONTRERAS (Chile) said that Senators in Chile were almost all re-elected Senators or former Deputies. In the current Senate, only one Senator had come from outside Parliament. Training tended to come from political parties rather than from the Senate administration. Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, noted that Mr Hoffmann Contreras had worked for the parliamentary administration in Chile for more than 50 years. Mr Robert ROGERS (United Kingdom) said that the induction provided by the House of Commons service following the general election in 2010 had represented a step change, after a year of reputational damage as a result of an expenses scandal which had led to the retirement of many more Members than expected. The risk had been that the administration would be seen by new Members as implicated in the wrongs of the previous Parliament. Training had been timed to capture Members during the ‘golden hour’ when first impressions would be formed. In preparation, 200 House staff had been involved in a rehearsal, pretending to be Members of Parliament, including ‘Mrs Angry MP’, and ‘Mr Disorganised MP’ with small children in tow. Following the election, one of new Members’ first experiences was to be shown in the Chamber itself by both experienced parliamentarians and senior parliamentary staff how to operate effectively in the Chamber. The preparation for and implementation of the training had been extremely worthwhile, as it had helped to create effective, determined and independent-minded new Members of Parliament, and had established the House of Commons service with a strong reputation as effective, independent and professional. Mrs Doris Katai Katebe MWINGA (Zambia), responding to the debate, said that within a month of their election, MPs in Zambia had been given two induction courses, each lasting three to four days. Training was timed where possible to coincide with related activity, such as the Budget. Members tended to be more enthusiastic about training when new, during their first few months. They were not all professional people, as with Chilean senators. Members from rural constituencies needed strong cars to enable them to travel between the capital and their constituency, and these were available on loan. There were programmes connected with international relations: IPU staff and those from other international organisations came to talk to Members of Parliament. MPs tended not to read material they were given: it was more effective to talk to them. Information overload was a real problem. Two of the training programmes were conducted in the Chamber itself. These were recorded to inform the preparation of future training, but not shared with Members. Mr Ghulam Hassan GRAN (Afghanistan) spoke of the challenges facing the Afghan Parliament. These included the numbers of new and returning Members and the timing of the training programme. University professors in particular subjects were invited to take part in the induction of new Members, on subjects including the IPU and international assemblies. Martin Chungong from the IPU would hopefully attend the opening ceremony of the Parliament. The level of education of some Afghan MPs was not advanced. Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mrs Doris Katai Katebe MWINGA and all the members present for their numerous and useful contributions. 2. Presentation by Mr Anders JOHNSSON, Secretary General of the IPU, on proposals for reform of the IPU Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr Johnsson for the perfect organisation of the session, with which he and the ASGP had become accustomed, and for coming to explain to the Association the recent developments at the IPU and how they might affect the ASGP. Mr JOHNSSON thanked the President for the opportunity to have this exchange. He wished to address three subjects: first, the continuing debate over the future of the IPU, including the possibility of a new Treaty; second, the project to produce a World Parliament report; and third, the issue of gender equality within parliamentary secretariats. The 3rd Speakers’ conference held in July had debated four fundamental issues: the respective roles of Speakers, the United Nations, Parliaments on the international stage, and the IPU. The IPU had been inspired by the fact that the UN Millennium Declaration had cited governments’ intention to strengthen co-operation with the IPU, referring to it specifically as the world organisation for national parliaments. However, parliamentary activities were increasingly being undertaken by governmental organisations such as the UN, as well as by the IPU. Parliaments as well as governments needed to take a stand on these issues. It had become clear in Bangkok in April that Speakers were not yet ready to take a decision, but that there was scope for a worthwhile discussion. It had been an excellent Speakers’ conference, the best of the three held to date, because it had not been connected with a Heads of Government meeting, and had therefore been less ceremonial, and there had been real debate on issues on which there was no consensus. The sense had emerged on IPU reform that the cart was being put before the horse, and that there was a need to decide on the strategy and purpose of the IPU before deciding on status issues. As a result, the IPU secretariat had produced a “draft strategic plan”, but in fact this title was not entirely accurate, as the document contained questions, rather than decisions. Answers to these questions from IPU members would provide the organisation’s strategy. The document attempted to explain both the internal and external environments within which the IPU was working, and to define the mission of the IPU and the steps that needed to be taken to modernise the organisation to meet its goals. This was the first ever attempt to put on paper a strategic plan for the IPU. Members were being asked to reply with their thoughts. Early in 2011, the Executive Committee would act as a working group to take these thoughts into account in redrafting a document for consideration at Panama in April 2011. Mr Johnsson said that he was well aware that these were difficult times and that resources were constrained. The point of the draft strategic plan was to lead to two discussions. The first of these was on the relationship between the members of the IPU and the organisation. In different countries the IPU had a very different status. The reality was that the IPU was not always treated as the international organisation of parliaments. The second was on the competences of the IPU vis à vis those of intergovernmental organisations, who were getting involved in parliamentary work and assistance which was rightly a matter for parliaments, not governments. The IPU had it in mind to publish a global report on the state of the world’s parliaments. This project had been several years in gestation. A model was the UN Human Development Report. The United Nations had also had the same idea, and also had money with which to achieve it; it had invited the IPU to co-operate, and the aim was to produce this report in partnership. The report should provide an insider parliamentary perspective on the state of parliaments across the world, including challenges and good practice. A consultative council, of which the President of the ASGP was a member, had been established to draw up the first plans for this report. The IPU would be writing shortly to secretaries general in parliaments across the world asking for their assistance. The aim was to produce an accurate and stimulating report for the International Day of Democracy 2011. Once a year, the ASGP President reported to the Executive Committee of the IPU. This had happened most recently several days before. At this meeting, there had been discussion of the presence of women in parliamentary secretariats and at the level of secretary general. The IPU promoted gender equality at a political level; the presence of women within parliamentary administrations however depended to a great deal on secretaries general. The Executive Committee had asked the IPU and ASGP to reflect on how best to promote gender equality within parliamentary secretariats. Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr Johnsson, especially for his clarification of a complex situation. Mr Alain DELCAMP (France) made four observations. First, he noted that the mission of the IPU was as an organisation of world parliaments, not as a world parliament. Second, he asked whether the promotion of peace should be a prime objective of the IPU, given how many other organisations already fulfilled this role. He wondered what the IPU’s particular role was in this area. Third, he drew attention to the AGORA website, and asked why parliaments and the IPU were absent from this initiative, while so many other political organisations were involved. Fourth, he stated his support for the proposed World Parliament report, but thought it important that the ASGP’s work should be taken into account. Dr V.K. AGNIHOTRI (India) asked if individual parliaments would be asked to contribute to the Strategic Plan, and whether secretaries general might act as a filter for any draft document intended for presentation to members of the IPU Executive Committee. Mr Manuel Alba NAVARRO (Spain) wondered if the scope of the mission for the IPU in the draft document was too wide, and risked overlapping with the missions of other organisations. The IPU’s forte was its dedication to the parliamentary dimension. He noted that the draft strategic plan made no reference to the ASGP. He was concerned about the proposal on page 35 of the draft strategic plan that Standing Committees might meet separately from the IPU Assemblies, as it was often difficult to organise attendance for special meetings outside regular sessions. Mr Ashfaque HAMID (Bangladesh) asked about the origin of the proposed World Parliament report, and whether it was being developed by the UN or the IPU. Mr František JAKUB (Czech Republic) asked about the programme for consideration of the draft strategic plan, and whether 33 tasks were too many, particularly given current financial constraints. Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thought that the draft strategic plan was a good outcome from a difficult situation, but that it needed further consideration among Members of Parliament. Only at one point in the document, however, were parliamentary administrations mentioned at all. There needed to be co-ordination with the ASGP, as a consultative organisation of the IPU, and consideration of the role of secretaries general and the ASGP as part of the IPU’s strategic plan. Colleagues had already been made aware of the proposed World Parliament report. The President was in favour of concentrating on the gender issue, and there were relatively few female secretaries general, but this last point was a matter primarily for politicians. He assured Mr Johnsson of the continued collaboration of the ASGP, and reminded him that many secretaries general had also been Members of Parliament, and thus brought a double experience to these issues. Mr JOHNSSON thanked all those who had commented. He made two apologies: first, for not having distributed the draft strategic plan earlier; and second, for not having included the ASGP in the draft plan. There needed to be agreement on the role of the IPU, not only to establish a mission clearly, but to prioritise among its tasks and to establish a hierarchy of objectives. The list of tasks at the moment was based on the current position; it was indeed too wide, but was aimed at starting a debate. The IPU had been involved in the AGORA project initially, but after a few months it had become clear that the vision of the partners was incompatible with that of the IPU, and so they had parted company. The World Parliament report was an ambitious project – initially the objectives of the IPU and United Nations had not been identical, but they had been able to work together to reach agreement. It was important that the ASGP’s work should be available to those working on this report. There was already an outline structure for the first report, and the timetable was tight, but in future years the report would be open to greater adaptation. Every parliament would be invited to provide comments on the draft Strategic Plan, as would the geopolitical groups of the IPU. He doubted that all parliaments would comment on all of the questions in the draft plan. The aim was to have a real draft strategy available and up for discussion in Panama – but this might not be achievable. The concern about Standing Committee meetings was well made. There was no intention of the IPU becoming a UN agency, but it did need a more clearly defined profile and visibility, and clarity was needed on its relationship with the United Nations: it was a parliamentary counterpart to the inter-governmental UN. The aim was certainly not to represent or replace individual parliaments either. He understood that given the difficult financial climate that would persist for several years to come, the IPU needed to be modest and focus on what was possible as well as what was desirable. Gender equality in parliamentary secretariats was indeed a matter for both secretaries general and politicians. Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr Johnsson, and reiterated that the ASGP was ready to assist the IPU.
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, announced that three candidates had been put forward for two vacant posts on the Executive Committee: Dr Agnihotri (India), Mr Nombré (Burkina Faso), and Mr Schwab (Switzerland). He invited each of them to give a brief presentation of their candidacy. Dr V.K. AGNIHOTRI (India) said that he had been an active member of the ASGP since 2007-08. He had had a long career in the civil service prior to becoming a secretary general, and had also been a judge. Mr Alphonse K. NOMBRÉ (Burkina Faso) said that he had been a secretary general since March 2008, and a parliamentary servant since 1992, contributing to the development of the parliamentary service during this time. Before then, he had worked as a civil servant and a regional government official. Mr Philippe SCHWAB (Switzerland) said that he too had been a secretary general and member of ASGP since 2008, with a career history as both a parliamentary and civil servant. Given the quality of the other candidates, and in the interests of geographic diversity on the Executive Committee, he proposed to withdraw his candidacy. Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr Schwab and declared that the two remaining candidates were therefore elected by acclamation.
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invited Mr Ramil HASANOV, Secretary General of the Parliament Assembly of Turkic Speaking Countries (TURKPA) to present his communication, as follows: “First of all I would like to thank the President and Joint Secretary of the Association of the Secretaries General of Parliaments (ASGP) for the invitation to this important event and opportunity to address such an honorable audience and also express my gratitude for my acceptance to members of the ASGP. With your permission I would like to inform you shortly about the history of establishment of TURKPA and its activities. The Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic Speaking Countries (TURKPA) was established in November 21, 2008 according to the Agreement signed by the Heads of Parliaments of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and the Republic of Turkey. Then, in September 29, 2009 the first plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic Speaking Countries (TURKPA) was conducted in Baku, Azerbaijan. TURKPA Regulations, Statute of Secretariat, Baku Declaration and Statement regarding the permanent accomodation of the Secretariat in Baku city were adopted at the plenary session. TURKPA Chairmanship annually passes from one country to another by means of rotation in the English alphabetical order and according to this order the current Chairman is the Republic of Azerbaijan. At the forthcoming session in 2011 the Chairmanship will pass to Kazakhstan. The Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic Speaking Countries has an intention to support further development of political dialogue among the countries and create favorable political conditions for elaboration and implementation of different initiatives by means of parliamentary diplomacy as a qualitatively new stage of inter-parliamentary cooperation in order to maintain regional and global security. One of the main goals of TURKPA is the establishment of new relations and development of the existing ones with parliaments and other international organizations of the countries in the region and all over the world. On this basis I would like to emphasize that our organization has not been established against the third countries. Our goals include only strengthening of political and economic security of the countries on the grounds of refrainment from threat or use of force or economic or any other pressure, growth of national prosperity by means of full and rational use of natural resources; endeavour to the further progress in the sphere of parliamentary diplomacy. 3 out of 4 of our Members have a comparatively short history of independence and young parliaments, but nevertheless, they achieved to integrate into world parliamentary community to great extent during such a short period and establish bilateral and multilateral relations with many parliaments and international parliamentary organizations. So that, all our Members are also members of OSCE PA, 3 TURKPA Members are members of the Interparliamentary Assembly of CIS, Azerbaijan and Turkey are presented in PACE and are members of PABSEC (Parliamentary Assembly of Black Sea Economic Cooperation), Turkey is a Member and Azerbaijan is an Associate Member in NATO PA, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey are members of the Asian Parliamentary Assembly. On the other side, the Republic of Turkey has a comparatively long parliamentary history that provides a source of good practice for other TURKPA Members. At TURKPA we are committed to strengthen relations not only among our Member parliaments, but also between them and other parliaments and international parliamentary organizations. I should also mention that Turkey is a parliamentary republic and Kazakhstan is a semi-parliamentary republic that means a more influential role of the parliaments in these countries. Anyway, the current trends in politics tend not to leave foreign policy in monopoly of executive and they steer up the borders between domestic and foreign issues. To this end parliamentary diplomacy becomes an instrument to connect legislative bodies with foreign policies. In the present world the financial resources is basic in determining policies and planning the government’s actions and the parliaments are those bodies which decide on financial resources that is, the budget for the governments what gives the legislative body another important leverage to influence foreign policy. Therefore, there is a real opportunity to transform parliamentary diplomacy from “another speaker for government” to a “real dialogue among parliamentarians” considering also that parliamentarians can sometimes do what is beyond the competency of the diplomats and become an alternative channel in conflict settlements. Especially in Turkic speaking countries besides many transnational issues concerning all these countries such as energy and logistics projects, many issues of more global importance such as counter-terrorism activities and security issues depend on decisions of the parliaments that present an effective platform for parliamentary diplomacy. In this context TURKPA pays special attention to cooperation with the ASGP as the international parliamentary organization having great experience and being a high-level platform for discussion of regional and global concerns by parliamentarians from different countries. Let me take this opportunity to express sincere thanks on behalf of TURKPA management for the brilliant organization of this event and for having a chance to address the meeting. I would like to thank everybody who participated in the organization of this meeting and wish success to all participants.” Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr Ramil HASANOV for his communication. 5. Communication from Mr S. BAL SHEKAR, Additional Secretary of the Lok Sabha of India, on “Cut Motions - Motions to reduce the amount of money demanded by a Government in a Budget” Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invited Mr S. BAL SHEKAR, Additional Secretary of the Lok Sabha of India, to present his communication, as follows: “Constitutional right is a superior right and it overrides practices. Right to move Cut Motions is an important right of the members of the House (Lok Sabha) provided in the Constitution which cannot be curtailed. - Smt. Meira Kumar, Speaker, Lok Sabha A path breaking procedural development that took place during the Budget Session of the Lok Sabha this year has given a new dimension to the concept of Cut Motions. The momentous ruling of the Speaker upheld the rights of the member to move cut motions, setting aside certain longstanding practices and conventions in this regard. Article 113(2) of the Constitution of India lays down that the estimates of expenditure not charged on the Consolidated Fund of India are submitted in the form of Demands for Grants to the Lok Sabha, which has the power to assent, or to refuse to assent, to any ‘demand’, or to assent to any ‘demand’ subject to a reduction of the amount specified therein. During discussions on demands for grants, a motion can be moved to reduce the amount of a demand. Such a motion is called a ‘Cut Motion’. It is only a form of initiating discussion on the demand, so that the attention of the House is drawn to the matter specified therein. It is also a procedural tool to ventilate grievances or to suggest economies. Cut motions are given by members of the Opposition only and the members of the Government do not generally give such notices as it may amount to a vote of censure, or indirectly ‘no-confidence’, in the Council of Ministers. If cut motions go through, it would amount to an expression of no confidence and the Government will have to resign. Rules 209, 210, 211 and 212 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha and Direction 43 of the Directions by the Speaker, Lok Sabha lay down in detail the formalities relating to raising of Cut Motions in the House. Cut Motions can be classified into three categories viz., Disapproval of Policy Cut; Economy Cut; and Token Cut. Disapproval of Policy Cut: Where the object of a motion is to disapprove the policy underlying a demand, its form is “That the amount of the demand be reduced to Re. 1”. The member giving notice of such a Cut Motion has to indicate in precise terms the particulars of the policy, which he proposes to discuss. Discussion is confined to the specific point or points mentioned in the notice and it is open to the member to advocate an alternative policy. Economy Cut: Where the object of the motion is to effect an economy in the expenditure, the form of the motion is “that the amount of the demand be reduced by a specified amount”. The amount suggested for reduction is either a lump sum reduction in the demand or omission or reduction of an item in the demand. The notice has to indicate briefly and precisely the particular matter on which discussion is sought to be raised and speeches are confined to the points as to how the economy can be affected. Token Cut: Where the object of the motion is to ventilate a specific grievance within the sphere of the responsibility of the Government of India, the form is “That the amount of the demand be reduced by Rs. 100”. Discussion on such a Cut Motion is confined to the particular grievance specified in the motion. It is necessary that a Cut Motion, irrespective of its nature or type, should mention briefly and precisely the objectives. In fact, the practice of indicating briefly and precisely the particulars of the policy, the specific matter or grievance, as the case may be, that the member wants to discuss on his cut motion—whether disapproval of policy cut or economy cut or token cut—was started in 1925 during the Budget Session. Notice period for tabling Cut Motions The period of notice of a cut motion is one day previous to the day on which the demand to which it relates is under consideration, but the Speaker is empowered to waive an objection on the score of insufficient notice (vide Rule 212 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of the Business in Lok Sabha). The Rules Committee of the Fourth Lok Sabha considered the question of inadequacy of the period of notice for tabling of Cut Motions. The Committee decided that members might be requested to table such notices at least two days before the day they are to be taken up in the House. Before the commencement of Session, members are, therefore, requested through Bulletin to table the notice of Cut Motions at least two days before the day the relevant item to which they relate is to be taken up in the House, but in any case not later than 15.15 hrs. on the previous day. The notices of cut motions tabled up to 15.15 hours on a day are printed and circulated. The notices tabled after 15.15 hours are deemed to have been tabled on the next working day. These notices are printed and circulated on the next working day if the demands for grants to which they relate have not already been disposed of in the House. Admissibility of Cut Motions In order that notice of motion for reduction of the amount of demand may be admissible, it shall satisfy some specifically laid down conditions, namely:
Ultimately it is the Speaker who decides whether a Cut Motion is or is not admissible and may disallow any Cut Motion when in his opinion it is an abuse of the right of moving Cut Motions or is calculated to obstruct or prejudicially affect the procedure of the House, or is in contravention of the Rules of Procedure of the House (Rule 211). It is a well-established Parliamentary convention that cut motions seeking to discuss the action of the Speaker or relating to Speaker’s Department or matters under the control of Speaker are not allowed. Likewise, cut motions relating to the Office of the Vice-President (who is also ex-officio Chairman of Rajya Sabha) are not admissible. At the same time, Cut motions relating to matters under consideration of a Parliamentary Committee, seeking to discuss a matter affecting relations with a friendly foreign country or details of internal administration of an autonomous body and omission of a whole grant are out of order. It has, however, been held that Cut Motions pertaining to the working of an autonomous body are admitted if they raise matters of public importance. Cut motions are not admissible if they ventilate personal grievances or if they cast aspersions on individual Government officials. Once admitted, the printed Lists of Cut Motions to the various Demands for Grants are circulated to all members and the Minister concerned, generally two days in advance of the date on which the Demands for Grants in respect of the Ministry are to be taken up in the House for discussion. Procedure regarding moving of Cut Motions At the commencement of the discussion on the Demands for Grants in respect of a particular Ministry, members are asked by the Speaker to hand over at the Table within fifteen minutes, slips indicating the serial numbers of their Cut Motions that they would like to move. The Cut Motions thus indicated by the members are only treated as moved. These motions can neither be moved at a later stage, nor if there is no time for proper discussion and voting and also not by proxy. All the Cut Motions moved by members are first disposed of by putting them to the vote of the House before the Demands for Grants are put to the vote of the House. Generally, all the Cut Motions are negatived. As already mentioned above, a Cut Motion, if passed, is tantamount to censuring or indirectly expressing ‘no-confidence’ in the Council of Ministers. Also that the members of the ruling party do not by convention give notice of, or move Cut Motions to the Demands for Grants but they can take part in the discussion and may in their speeches criticise or question the policy of the Government or the wisdom of any expenditure or financial prospect. However, there have been occasions when ruling party members tabled notices of cut motions but did not move them. Though Cut Motions were adopted by the erstwhile Legislatures on several occasions between 1922 and 1939, there has been no such instance in the post independence era. The Fifteenth Lok Sabha: Observation from the Chair regarding moving of Cut motions in respect of Demands for Grants whether discussed or guillotined. The Parliament of India, while conducting the business, has shown considerable flexibility regarding procedural issues. The Speaker being the centre point as the Presiding Officer tries to ensure that all sections of the House are heard. Whenever situation demands or a clarification is sought on a Point of Order, he/she is required to interpret the rules, study past precedents and decisions, give directions and pronounce rulings. And he/she does so after taking into consideration the provisions of the Constitution, the established parliamentary practices, customs, conventions and precedent. His/her observations in the form of rulings reflect the sense of the House prevailing at that point of time, constitute precedents and become the guiding principles for successive Houses. In this context, it would be worth mentioning the historical decision that raised and established a valid point of constitutional and parliamentary law, for years to come. It so happened, on 27 April 2010, before the submission of the outstanding Demands for Grants relating to the Ministries and Departments to the vote of the House, one of the senior members raised an important issue relating to the right of members of the House in moving cut motions on the Demands for Grants which are guillotined. Referring to article 113 of the Constitution of India, he stated that since the Constitution vests in the House of the People the power to assent to the demand subject to reduction of the amount specified in that demand, the members have the right to move cut motions on any demand submitted to the House for its approval. The practice followed so far in this regard in the House had been that the cut motions in respect of the Demands for Grants which were to be guillotined were not circulated and thus not allowed to be moved. However, the right of a member to move a cut motion flows from the power vested in the Lok Sabha under article 113 of the Constitution. Evidently, this article of the Constitution or any of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha does not make any distinction between the demands which are discussed in the House and those which are guillotined. Therefore, while considering the issue of cut motions in respect of the Demands for Grants which are guillotined, after carefully examining the rules as well as the practices that have been followed all these years and the constitutional provision which vests the power in the House of the People to reduce any demand submitted to it, it was concluded in the Budget Session of the Fifteenth Lok Sabha that a constitutional right has precedence, and a practice cannot override a constitutional provision. The Speaker upheld the right of the members recognizing that the right to move cut motions is a crucial right, which cannot be denied and allowed the cut motions to be moved. For the first time in annuls of Indian Parliamentary history, Cut Motions on the Demands for Grants, which were to be guillotined, were treated as moved and negatived - never once did a member raise this issue in the House. After disposal of cut motions, all the Outstanding Demands for Grants were submitted to the vote of the House and voted in full. Conclusion An effective mechanism of scrutiny operated by dedicated and vigilant members through their more active participation in various parliamentary debates and discussions is essential for ensuring greater accountability to the Legislature. We, in India, have formulated rules and procedures and developed conventions and traditions to govern the proper functioning of the Parliament. Over the last more than six decades, many innovations have been made in the rules, several precedents evolved, a number of healthy conventions established and quite a few practices, peculiar to our own system, developed. Yet, the need to strengthen various devices of parliamentary scrutiny to give greater meaning to the concept of accountability is a continuing one. Parliament has been in the process of change. Procedure, therefore, cannot be static; it evolves itself.” Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, thanked Mr S. BAL SHEKAR for his communication. The sitting rose at 4.45 pm. FIFTH SITTING Wednesday 6 October 2010 (Morning) Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, in the Chair Directory: sites -> default -> files -> documents documents -> North Mankato Taylor Library documents -> In the Red and Brown Water documents -> - documents -> Cbp and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: pga december 22, 2015 documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements documents -> Mobile audio/video recording systems documents -> The south australian government gazette documents -> All public acts appearing in this gazette are to be considered official, and obeyed as such documents -> Plymouth University Academic Partnerships Cornwall College Camborne Programme Quality Handbook for Download 469.13 Kb. Share with your friends:
|