TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No
FIRST SITTING – Monday 4 October [am] -
Opening of the Session 10
-
Election to the Executive Committee 10
-
Orders of the Day 10
-
New Members 13
-
General debate: Managing parliamentary spending in times of economic restraint: challenges and solutions 14
SECOND SITTING – Monday 4 October [pm]
1. Communication from Mr Sarith OUM, Secretary General of the Senate of Cambodia, on “The Cambodian Senate: from a self-evaluation exercise towards a new development plan” 26
2. Communication from Mr Damir DAVIDOVIC, Secretary General of the Parliament of Montenegro, on “Parliamentary autonomy in Montenegro” 32
3. Communication from Mr Austin ZVOMA, Clerk of Parliament of Zimbabwe, on “The challenges parliamentary committees face in exercising oversight functions on the Executive” 38
THIRD SITTING – Tuesday 5 October [am]
1. Introductory Remarks 47
2. New Members 47
3. Communication from Mr Manuel Alba NAVARRO, Secretary General of the Congress of Deputies of Spain, on “Transparency and exemplarity as criteria guiding parliamentary activity” 48
4. Communication from Dr V.K. AGNIHOTRI, Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha of India, on “Introducing information technology in the Chamber” 53
5. Communication from Mr Vladimir SVINAREV, Secretary General of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, on “Current issues in supporting the activities of the Council of the Federation” 58
FOURTH SITTING – Tuesday 5 October [pm]
1. General debate: Support and training for new Members of Parliament 60
2. Presentation by Mr Anders JOHNSSON, Secretary General of the IPU, on
proposals for reform of the IPU 75
3. Nominations for two vacant posts on the Executive Committee (ordinary
members) 78
4. Communication from Mr Ramil HASANOV, Secretary General of the Parliament Assembly of Turkic Speaking Countries, on “Turkic Speaking Countries and parliamentary diplomacy” 79
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” 81
FIFTH SITTING – Wednesday 6 October [am]
1. New Member 86
2. Presentation by Mr Wigberto QUINTERO, Secretary General of the National Assembly of Panama, on the organisation of the next meeting (Panama, April 2011) 86
3. Communication from Mr Zingile DINGANI, Secretary to the South African Parliament, on “Independent budget processes of Parliament for improved accountability and scrutiny of parliamentary budget” 86
4. Communication from Mr KWON Oh Eul, Secretary General of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, on “The realization of ‘a model parliament communicating with its citizens’” 97
5. Administrative and financial questions 103
6. Examination of the draft agenda for the next meeting (Panama, April 2011) 103
7. Closure of the Session 105
FIRST SITTING
Monday 4 October 2010 (Morning)
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, in the Chair
The sitting was opened at 10.30 am
-
Opening of the Session
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, welcomed all those present, especially new members, and said how honoured he was once again to preside over the meetings of the Association. He hoped that the ASGP would remain a lively forum for discussion and learning. He encouraged members to participate in the conference to be held later in the week on strengthening links between Parliaments and citizens, organised by the IPU in co-operation with the ASGP.
-
Election to the Executive Committee
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, announced that two posts of ordinary member on the Executive Committee had been vacated by Mr ACHARY and Mr MOUTARI. At its meeting that morning, the Executive Committee had judged that it would be wise to fill both posts at the current session.
It was agreed to.
The election would take place on Wednesday 6 October at 11 am, with the deadline for candidacies falling at 4 pm on Tuesday 5 October.
The President reminded members that it was normal for experienced and active members of the Association to stand for election, rather than more recent members.
-
Orders of the Day
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, read the proposed Orders of the Day as follows:
Monday 4 October
Morning
9.00 am Meeting of the Executive Committee
10.30 am Opening of the session
Orders of the day of the Conference
New members
General debate: Managing parliamentary spending in times of economic restraint: challenges and solutions
Moderator: Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER, Deputy Secretary General of the German Bundestag
Afternoon
2.30 pm Communication by Mr Sarith OUM, Secretary General of the Senate of Cambodia: “The Cambodian Senate: from a self-evaluation exercise towards a new development plan”
Communication by Mr Damir DAVIDOVIC, Secretary General of the Parliament of Montenegro: “Parliamentary autonomy in Montenegro”
Communication by Mr Austin ZVOMA, Clerk of Parliament of Zimbabwe: “The challenges parliamentary committees face in exercising oversight functions on Executive”
Tuesday 5 October
Morning
9.30 am Meeting of the Executive Committee
10.00 am Communication by Mr Manuel ALBA NAVARRO, Secretary General of the Congress of Deputies of Spain: “Transparency and exemplarity as criteria guiding parliamentary activity”
Communication by Dr Vivek K. AGNIHOTRI, Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha of India: “Introducing information technology in the Chamber”
Communication by Mr. Vladimir SVINAREV, Secretary General of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation: “Current issues in supporting the activities of the Council of the Federation”
Afternoon
2.30 pm General debate: Support and training for new Members of Parliament
Moderator: Mrs Doris Katai Katebe MWINGA, Clerk of the National Assembly of Zambia
Communication by Mr Ramil HASANOV, Secretary General of the Parliament Assembly of Turkic Speaking Countries: “Turkic Speaking Countries and parliamentary diplomacy”
Communication by Mr S BAL SHEKAR, Additional Secretary of the Lok Sabha of India: “Cut Motions - Motions to reduce the amount of money demanded by a Government in a Budget”
3.30 pm Presentation by Mr Anders JOHNSSON, Secretary General of the IPU, on proposals for reform of the IPU
4.00 pm Deadline for nominations for two vacant posts on the Executive Committee (ordinary members)
Wednesday 6 October
Morning
9.30 am Meeting of the Executive Committee
10.00 am Presentation by Mr Wigberto QUINTERO, Secretary General of the National Assembly of Panama, on the organisation of the next meeting (Panama, April 2011)
Communication by Mr Zingile DINGANI, Secretary to the South African Parliament: “Independent budget processes of Parliament for improved accountability and scrutiny of parliamentary budget”
Communication by Mr KWON Oh Eul, Secretary General of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea: “The realization of ‘a model parliament communicating with its citizens’ ”
11.00 am Election of two ordinary members of the Executive Committee
Afternoon
2.30 pm Administrative and financial questions
Examination of the draft agenda for the next meeting (Panama, April 2011)
Closure
Thursday 7 October
9.30 am Conference on strengthening links between parliaments and citizens – organized jointly with the IPU
The Orders of the Day were agreed to.
The President noted that the Executive Committee had confirmed the need for members to keep to time and not to read long speeches, so that those presenting written contributions to general debates or communications should not take longer than 10 minutes, with other interventions lasting less than 5 minutes.
-
New Members
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, said that the secretariat had received several requests for membership which had been put before the Executive Committee and agreed to. These were:
Mr Abdul Qadir Bin Salim AL-DHAHAB Secretary General of the Consultative Council of Oman
(This country is joining for the first time)
Mr Adrián ALVAREZ Secretary General of the Chamber of Deputies of Chile
(replacing Mr Carlos Loyola Opazo)
Mr Eduardo de Jesus BENY Secretary General of the National Assembly of Angola
(replacing Dr Pedro Agostinho de Neri)
Dr Christward GRADENWITZ Deputy Secretary General of the Senate of the States General of the Netherlands
Mr Shigeo INOUE Deputy Secretary General of the House of Representatives of Japan
(replacing Mr Tsuneo Sedo)
Mr Abdul Ghafar JAMSHEDEE Deputy Secretary General of the House of Representatives of Afghanistan
Ms Corinne LUQUIENS Secretary General of the French National Assembly and the Presidency
(replacing Mr Yves Michel)
Mr Salisu Abubakar MAIKASUWA Clerk of the National Assembly of Nigeria
(replacing Mr Oluyemi Ogunyomi)
Ms Yardena MELLER-HOROVITZ Secretary General of the Knesset of Israel
(replacing Mr Eyal Yinon)
Mr Jean-Luc MERLINO Secretary General of the National Council of Monaco
(replacing Mrs Valérie VIORA-PUYO)
Ms Mampiti F. NCHAPI Clerk of the Senate of Lesotho
(replacing Mr M. G. Maluke)
Mrs Norarut PIMSEN Secretary General of the Senate of Thailand
(replacing Mrs Suvimol Phumisingharaj)
Ms Danièle RIVAILLE Secretary General of the Questure of the French National Assembly
(replacing Mr Xavier Roques)
Mr Hossein SHEIKHOLESLAM Chief of the Speaker’s Bureau and Director General of the International Department of the Islamic Parliament of Iran
(This country is joining the ASGP for the first time)
Mr T.K. VISWANATHAN Secretary General of the Lok Sabha of India
(replacing Mr P.D.T. Achary)
The new members were agreed to.
-
General debate: Managing parliamentary spending in times of economic restraint: challenges and solutions
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invited Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER, Deputy Secretary General of the German Bundestag, to open the debate.
Dr Ulrich SCHÖLER (Germany) spoke as follows:
“We are starting our October session this year with a general debate on “Managing parliamentary spending in times of economic restraint: challenges and solutions”. This is a particularly topical issue at present as almost every country’s budget deficit and debt stock have increased significantly, and in some cases dramatically, over the past two years as a result of the global economic and financial crisis. Although the global economic slump seems to have bottomed out, there is still major uncertainty about the sustainability and permanence of the economic recovery.
In Germany, too, the economic and financial crisis has profoundly affected the state of public finances. In 2009, we experienced the worst recession since the Federal Republic came into existence, and two supplementary budgets were required to cushion the impacts of the crisis and finance the mitigation measures adopted in this context. In 2010, falling tax revenues and rising expenditure have resulted in new borrowing on an unprecedented scale. The draft budget for 2011 is intended to reduce this new borrowing to a sustainable level without impeding growth. New debt rules incorporated into Germany’s constitution, the Basic Law, come into effect from 2011 and will oblige the Federal Government and the budget legislator to cut the structural deficit. Net borrowing, for example, must be progressively reduced by around 10 billion euros annually to 2016.
This consolidation policy course is a requirement of the draft budget presented by the Federal Finance Minister. Among other things, it means that every area of expenditure must make a contribution to compliance with the new debt rules. When drawing up the budget estimates for 2011 and in the mid-term financial plan to 2014, all assets are to be reviewed and every item of income and expenditure to be examined critically on a differentiated basis. Parliament, too, must comply with these financial and budget policy constraints when preparing its own budget.
In Germany, Parliament has budget sovereignty. However, the constitutional organs do not act in isolation; rather, given the complementary nature of their functions, they must consult and cooperate with each other if they are to perform their functions properly. Experience has shown that when preparing the budget, political priorities invariably have a bearing on consolidation efforts. It is not simply a matter of making proportional cuts. In the 2011 budget, for example, the Federal Government plans to increase the budget of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, whereas cutbacks will be required in other policy areas.
If Parliament expects the general public to make sacrifices as part of the efforts to overcome the economic and financial crisis, it cannot ignore the need for financial restraint when it comes to establishing its own budget, which accounts for a 0.2 per cent share of the total federal budget. If Parliament wishes to set an example, it must critically examine the Bundestag’s budget as well – but without adversely affecting its functionality. The capacities of the German Bundestag, as a constitutional body, to function effectively must be dictated not by the financial situation but by its obligations to fulfil its mandate and functions. Funding for official visits for Members, for example, is one of the areas which help to safeguard this functionality. Despite frequent public criticism of Members’ “travel activities” and the implication that they go abroad far too often, such criticism is wide of the mark. In fact, this item of expenditure has increased over the last ten years, but the rise is primarily due to more intensive contacts between the German Bundestag and European Union institutions as part of the Lisbon process and to the Bundestag’s international activities and commitments.
The Members of the German Bundestag therefore have the difficult task of influencing the preparation of Germany’s federal budget while also critically reviewing Parliament’s own budget spending. They must ask themselves whether and how Parliament can make a contribution to consolidating the federal budget and overcoming the economic and financial crisis in the light of parliamentary spending as a proportion of the overall budget, without restricting Parliament’s ability to perform its constitutional tasks.
I am sure that many other national parliaments are facing similar situations and I look forward to hearing about the differences and other solutions being adopted.”
Dr V.K. AGNIHOTRI (India) presented the following contribution:
“1. Globalisation has made the national economies intricately interconnected with the result that virtually no economy can be insulated from the developments at the global level. Recent global economic crisis arising out of the financial crisis in the U.S.A. has deeply impacted the economies of both developed and developing countries. Now, with the adoption of fiscal and monetary policy responses by the countries across the world, the economic crisis has been contained to a large extent and the global economy is returning to growth recovery. This issue has also been addressed by the greater coordination of policies and efforts by the G-20 countries in their different summits held during the last two years. Due to these measures, the growth is returning but the recovery is uneven across the countries. With the sovereign debt crisis in some countries in the Eurozone, there is apprehension that the economic crisis is yet to be over. The issues relating to global economic stability also came up for discussion at the G-20 Speakers’ Consultation – Presiding Officers of the Upper and Unicameral Houses of the G-20 held in the first week of September 2010 at Ottawa in Canada. The Conference helped to sensitise the parliamentarians all over the world to the issues involved through mutual exchange of ideas and perspectives.
2. Parliaments represent the sovereign will of the people and seek redressal of their grievances and problems. Entrusted with the oversight, legislative and budgetary functions, Parliaments have the responsibility to hold the governments accountable for their acts of omissions and commissions. As they have been assigned a pre-eminent position in the constitutional set-up in parliamentary democracies, Parliaments have the power to frame and control their own budget without interference from any outside body. This is inherent in the idea of autonomy of Parliament and is essential for protecting its institutional independence. Parliamentary independence and effectiveness to carry out its functions is eroded when Parliament lacks control over its own budget and has inadequate finances to manage its own affairs. The parliamentary budget is seldom debated, or rather not at all debated, and agreed to without any amendment. In many Parliaments, it is included within the draft budget of the Government. In some cases, the budget is agreed to through a vote on a separate estimate before or after the passing of the general budget.
3. The secretariats of parliaments draw up their draft budget without any intervention from the Executive. The parliamentary authorities alone decide the amount required by the Parliament and the manner in which it would be spent. The stated economic policy of the Government and the austerity measures adopted by it are also factored into such decision, if any. Generally, the Speaker or the Presiding Officer is responsible for the management of the budget at the highest level. He delegates some of his powers to the Secretary-General or to a specialised department such as the Bureau or Parliamentary Committee which helps him in managing the budget.
4. The receipts constitute a very miniscule portion of the income of the Parliaments. Almost the entire expenditure of Parliaments is met from the budget. Under the receipts, which supplement the budget include the sale of parliamentary documents, publications, etc. In most of the Parliaments, apart from the budgetary resources, they have no receipts. The main items of expenditure in the Parliamentary budget are common to all Parliaments which are as follows:
-
The salaries and pensions, which comprise remuneration and financial benefits and pensions of Members of Parliament on the one hand and the salaries and pensions of staff on the other.
-
Administrative expenditure, which covers the services and various equipments at the disposal of Members of Parliament (e.g. expenses on holding Committee meetings, purchase of equipments, computer peripherals, office supplies, publication costs, etc.).
Budget of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha
5. As per Article 98 of the Constitution, the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha Secretariats are independent bodies under the overall control and direction of the Chairman, Rajya Sabha and the Speaker, Lok Sabha, respectively. The financial autonomy of the Secretariats has been attained through protracted correspondence with the Executive from time to time and parliamentary conventions and directions from the Chair.
6. The Budget Estimates of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha and their Secretariats are approved by the respective Secretaries General. After their approval, the estimates are forwarded to the Ministry of Finance for incorporation in the Union Budget. However, in the case of Lok Sabha, after the approval of the Secretary-General, the estimates are placed before the Committee appointed by the Speaker. The estimates are finally submitted to the Speaker along with the recommendations, if any, of the Committee for his approval. The Budget Estimates are prepared as per the budget code of the Government, under the various units of appropriation. The Budget Estimates of both the Houses of Parliament and their Secretariats consist of two parts - the charged expenditure and the voted expenditure. The charged expenditure of each House and its Secretariat relates to the salary and allowances of the respective Presiding Officers and the voted expenditure, inter alia, comprises the salary, allowances, etc. of the respective Members, Leader of the Opposition, Leaders, Deputy Leaders or Chief Whips of recognized parties/groups, the respective Secretariat and the Pay and Accounts Office of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha.
7. The Budget Estimates of both the Houses of Parliament and their Secretariats are not subject to examination by any Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Finance or any other Committee of Parliament. In case the Ministry of Finance has to make any suggestion in respect of the estimates, the same is submitted to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha/Speaker, Lok Sabha for their consideration and orders and a final decision acceptable to both is arrived at after discussion. In event of any difference of opinion between the two, the viewpoint of the Chairman, Rajya Sabha/Speaker, Lok Sabha prevails, as it is for the Presiding Officers of both the Houses to decide what is necessary for their respective House and its Secretariat in the efficient discharge of their assigned responsibilities.
8. The expenditure incurred on various units of appropriations under Rajya Sabha/Lok Sabha and their respective Secretariats is met from the Consolidated Fund of India. As in the case of other Ministries of the Government of India, separate Demands for Grants in respect of both Houses are also presented to Parliament. Parliament sanctions the expenditure through the Appropriation Act. No cut motions or discussions relating to the budget of both the Houses of Parliament and their Secretariats are allowed on the floor of the House. If a Member wishes to have any information, it is supplied to him under the orders of the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be.
9. Once the Budget of Rajya Sabha and its Secretariat are passed by Parliament and placed at the disposal of the Secretariat, the expenditure incurred under each unit of appropriation is independently monitored by the Secretariat. The Executive does not interfere in the financial management of the Secretariat and its concurrence is not sought on any expenditure within the allotted grants. The re-appropriations out of the savings are made directly by diverting money to those units of appropriations where deficit is noticed. While principles governing permissible re-appropriations are followed scrupulously, no formal concurrence of the Ministry of Finance is required to be sought as per the well established convention. As recommended by the Public Accounts Committee, any order for re-appropriation issued during a financial year, which has the effect of increasing the budget provision under a sub-head or standard object head by more than 25 per cent of the Budget Estimates or Rupees five crore, whichever is more, is reported to the Ministry of Finance for being placed before the Parliament along with the Supplementary Demands of the financial year. Similarly, savings, if any, are surrendered to the Government in the month of March every year with the approval of the Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha.
10. The financial rules and orders issued by the Government to the Ministries and Departments do not automatically apply to the Rajya Sabha and its Secretariat. It is for the Chairman, Rajya Sabha to make the financial adjustments as per the requirements of the House and its Secretariat. Since the funds for expenditure are drawn by the Parliament Secretariats out of the Consolidated Fund of India, its accounts are also subject to audit as per the provisions of the Comptroller and Auditor General's (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971. There is also a separate office namely, Pay & Accounts Office, Rajya Sabha attached to the Secretariat which conducts internal audit, authorises payments and maintains appropriation accounts and provident fund accounts of the Secretariat.
Operational issues in Managing Parliamentary Spending
11. Parliament being a constitutional entity cannot be equated with any profit making organization. Being the embodiment of sovereign will of people, it cannot be subjected to financial scarcity and neglect. Therefore, for its proper functioning and performance of its constitutional mandate, a portion of the financial grant has to be assigned to the Parliament. As the Parliament is run by the Presiding Officers to manage the ever growing complexities of legislative work and to assist the Members of Parliament to perform their public duties, the budgetary provisions are, therefore, made commensurate with their constitutional status. The salary and allowances paid to the Presiding Officers, Members and the Secretariat cannot be reduced unless the constitutional provision of Financial Emergency under Article 360 is invoked. Therefore, the only option available during times of economic constraint is the adoption of the austerity measures which mainly relate to the administrative expenses other than the ‘salary and allowances’.
12. Recently, the Salary, Allowances and Pensions of Members of Parliament (Amendment) Bill, 2010 has been passed by Parliament, which has sought to increase the salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament. This will lead to demand for higher budgetary allocation to Parliament and accordingly more provisioning has to be made by the government of the day. Given the constitutional position and the onerous responsibilities bestowed on them, Members need to be provided reasonable level of remuneration so that they can perform their duties effectively and efficiently within the Parliament towards the development of the country and welfare of the people.
13. The issue of increase in salary, allowances of the Members received criticism from the public and media. The Joint Committee on Salaries and Allowances of Members of Parliament in its Report 2010 while recommending increase in the salaries and allowances has inter alia stated, “There is a general misconception among the public at large as well as the media that the Members of Parliament are highly paid. In fact, the professional support which a Member of Parliament receives to discharge his parliamentary duties is generally confused with the remuneration. The Committee are of the opinion that professional support extended to Members of Parliament for enabling them to perform their Parliamentary responsibilities/duties efficiently and effectively may not be considered as part of their personal salary benefits”. The Report further states that after the implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the employees have received substantial enhancement of the salary package. Similarly, salaries of the President, Vice-President, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, Governors have been increased, but the salary aspect of Members of Parliament was left untouched. The Committee felt the necessity for increase in the salary and certain allowances of Members of Parliament.
14. It may be mentioned that since 2001, a periodic limit of five years has been fixed in the Salaries, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954 for effecting any revision of salary and allowances. The Joint Committee accepted the concept of linking the salary component with Consumer Price Index meant for Urban Non-manual Employees. The last increase in salary of members was made in September 2006 and in respect of allowances in July 2007. Regarding the need for setting up of a separate body for periodic determination of salary and allowances of MPs, the Joint Committee (Fourteenth Lok Sabha) in its Report presented in May 2006 inter alia recommended for establishing a Permanent Mechanism for periodic determination of salaries, allowances and other amenities to the Members of Parliament on the basis of rate of inflation and/or Consumer Price Index meant for Urban Non-manual Employees. The then Minister of Parliamentary Affairs on the floor of the House on 22.08.2006 assured that the Government would bring to the House a resolution in respect of the proposed mechanism in the next session. However, no such resolution has been moved as yet by the Government.
15. India has been able to contain the negative impact of the economic crisis. The financial stability has been achieved through the prudential policies and measures adopted by the Government and the Reserve Bank of India. While staging recovery, our economy is expected to grow by 8.5% in 2010-11 and 9% thereafter. India has been consciously pursuing a high growth path in order to achieve the key objectives of rural regeneration, poverty alleviation, inclusiveness and sustainable development.
16. The Government with a view to ensuring availability of adequate resources for meeting the objectives of critical development, priority schemes and to deal with the current fiscal situation arising out of insufficient rain in large parts of the country and the consequent pressure on Government resources, felt that there is a need for further economy and rationalization of expenditure. The Ministry of Finance issued guidelines on expenditure management – economy measures and rationalization of expenditure in September 2009. The Rajya Sabha Secretariat examined these guidelines and decided to adopt the austerity measures/guidelines which include that (i) no travel on Government account by air will take place by first class; and (ii) all domestic travel on Government account by air will take place only by economy class, irrespective of the entitlement.
17. It may be interesting to note the trends in the budgetary allocations made to the Rajya Sabha during the last three financial years. In 2008-09, the Budget Estimates of the Rajya Sabha under the Major Head ‘2011’ was Rs.114.57 crore, which increased in the Revised Estimates to Rs.131.84 crore. In 2009-10, the Budget Estimates was Rs.160.64 crore, while the Revised Estimates was Rs.163.79 crore. In 2010-11, the Budget Estimates is placed at Rs.173.05 crore. The financial allocation during the last three financial years indicates an upward trend. But it was more on account of the upward revision of salaries than increase on any other account. To keep the entire budget allocation in proper perspective, the financial allocation to the Rajya Sabha from the total budget of the Government of India needs to be compared on percentage basis than on absolute basis. In 2008-09, the financial allocation to the Rajya Sabha was 0.0153% of the total budget of Rs.7,50,884 crore of the Government. In 2009-10, it was 0.0157% of the total budget of Rs.10,20,838 crore of the Government. In 2010-11, it is 0.0150% of the total budget of Rs.11,08,749.24 crore of the Government. Thus, the budget allocation made to Parliament, especially to the Rajya Sabha, is actually on the lower side. Though, in absolute terms it is showing an increase in allocation but in percentage terms, there is a decline in allocation to Rajya Sabha from the total budget of the Government of India. Moreover, the inflationary market pressures have to be adjusted in the form of hike in dearness allowance to the employees of the Secretariat which resulted in an increase in allowances. It also included purchase of equipments, machines and other items meant for administrative purposes which are costlier and thus inflating expenditure of Rajya Sabha. The expenditure is generally controlled and monitored by taking recourse to the financial prudence and rationalization of expenditure.
Summing up
18. The unprecedented situation of economic crisis severely affecting the economies of the world, has forced the countries to take measures to reduce the public deficit and expenditure on government institutions. And the Parliament cannot be an exception and therefore, it has to make optimal utilization of available financial resources.
19. Speakers/Presiding Officers of Parliaments are primarily responsible for overseeing the administration and management of their respective Houses. Parliaments have largely a fair degree of independence in drawing their budgets. The Speaker or the Secretary-General of each House of the Legislature while determining respective parliamentary budget remain alive to the need for financial prudence and economy in expenditure. A well laid out audit system is also in place to ensure optimum utilization of resources in fair and transparent manner. Parliament approves the Demands for Grants of other Ministries/Departments of the Government after detailed critical scrutiny whereas parliamentary budget is passed without any discussion in the House. This casts a heavy responsibility on Parliament to remain careful in not only drawing its Budget but also in its pattern of expenditure based on financial prudence and sound judgement. The image of Parliaments world over depends, to a great extent, on the degree of autonomy in financial matters vis-à-vis the executive. It is also imperative that their expenditure is more focused and precisely directed by following the principles of financial prudence. More importantly, it is essential that Parliament should conduct its business in productive manner so that the value of the taxpayers’ money is realised.”
Mr Vladimir SVINAREV (Russian Federation) presented the following contribution:
“Considering the important missions that we have to accomplish, an efficient funding, maintenance and support of the parliamentary process is the topical issue dominating the agenda of all the law-makers at all legislative levels.
An examination of the available information on the structure, functions and performance of central and regional legislative bodies and a review of the world experience to date have served the basis for the economic model designed to maintain and support the Council of Federation law-making process. The model builds on the fundamental federal law “On the Status of Member of the Council of Federation and Deputy of the State Duma in the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, the Fiscal Code of the Russian Federation and the federal laws on the three-year state budget and the current fiscal year budget.
The normative approach forms the underlying principle of the CoF funding arrangement. This principle means a regulation (standardization) of the financial resources channelled to fund the functions executed by the CoF members, committees and commissions. In 2010 alone, over 60 regulatory acts and legal instruments governing allocation of financial resources to fund the CoF need to have been developed and approved by the CoF Funding, Maintenance and Support Assurance Commission. This commission is responsible for a practical application of the experience gained to date, implementation of recommendations received from the RF constituent entities and results gained through interaction with the parliaments in Canada, Sweden, UK, Brazil and in other nations. These regulations and legal instruments ensure a transparent and judicious application of public moneys and include among others the CoF budget development, approval and execution policy; the CoF scientific research management and financing policy; the CoF events management policy; the CoF members funding standards etc.
Last spring, the President of the Russian Federation addressing a meeting attended by the CoF members urged the Upper House jointly with the regional legislative assemblies to take swift measures in order to cure effects of the financial crunch as soon as possible. The President described optimisation of all the public accounts including the parliamentary funding arrangements as an effective crisis management instrument. The Council of Federation wasted no time and reciprocated by first thoroughly examining our cost structure and then revising the Upper House funding plan.
The schedule of positions and salaries has been optimised and the CoF Staff structure has been streamlined. The functions of the Staff divisions have been re-examined to exclude overlapping activities. Personal professional development and performance improvement are the tasks that the Staff members have to address now.
Some of the CoF expenditures are channelled to support the functions performed by the CoF members. Efforts have been taken to effectively reduce those expenditures without prejudice to the quality of services rendered to the CoF members.
A revision of allocations channelled to cover travelling costs incurred by the CoF Staff employees has become a major saver of the parliamentary funds. This is a sensitive cost item for us considering the vast territory of our country and the nature of our core function to maintain and support the law-making process in the RF constituencies whose number totals 83.
The Council of Federation holds numerous large-scale nation-wide and international events including The Baikal Economic Forum, The Neva Environment Congress, The International Road Safety Forum etc. These events are attended by thousands of people. Notwithstanding the funding restraints, both the national and international attendance has not decreased.
Reduction of natural resources consumption is a topical issue both for our Parliament and the Parliaments in many other countries. President Dmitry Medvedev proclaimed energy saving a government policy designed to promote energy-saving technologies and equipment in the first place thus reducing the costs and environmental impact.
The restrictions introduced on the circulation of documents’ hard copies have proved to be an effective money saver as well. Along with the other RF state bodies, we are actively assisting in the efforts to establish a single unified electronic portal granting access to government and municipal services and providing a swift response to public enquiries thus reducing consumption of paper.
The described lines of activities are reviewed on an annual basis. As demonstrated by the practical experience, we are making very good progress. All our efforts to optimise the costs structure ensure compliance with the established standards which fully fits in the effect-oriented budgeting model currently applied by the Russian Federation Government.
Proper management of the administrative and financial activities of the Parliament is indispensible for an optimised application of funds made available to the MPs and legislative bodies’ steering organs.
International experience gained by our colleagues in other countries is being extensively applied in the Council of Federation. Today, the MPs enjoy larger discretion over their individual budgets (current expenses, remuneration payable to assistants, travelling costs etc.). They are free to introduce new technologies simplifying document control and information support, optimize daily routine to make an efficient use of the services provided by the CoF Staff.
The described methods offer an opportunity to optimise application of funds allocated to support the CoF functions.”
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, asked what the role of the Speaker was in drawing up the parliamentary budget in Germany, before inviting members to participate in the debate.
Mr Zingile DINGANI (South Africa) asked what Dr Schöler meant by the Bundestag having sovereignty over its budget. Was there no interference from the Federal Treasury? He also asked what authority the Bundestag had to amend the budget of the Federal Government.
Dr V.K. AGNIHOTRI (India) said that in the Indian Parliament, each House had total autonomy in drawing up its own budget. There was no need for discussion or meeting with the Ministry of Finance in drawing up these budgets. Parliament had the opportunity to approve parliamentary staff salaries, but conventionally, did not reduce these amounts or even debate them. On the other side of the coin, secretaries general normally adopted the same staffing provisions as the main civil service, including economic restraints. The Minister of Finance had also in 2009-10 asked the Presiding Officers of both Houses if committees of both Houses could avoid meeting outside the precincts of Parliament, and they had obliged.
Mr Ghulam Hassan GRAN (Afghanistan) asked about the prospects for economic recovery in Germany.
Mr Manuel Alba NAVARRO (Spain) said that the total annual costs of the Chamber of Deputies were put into perspective by the fact that they approximated to the transfer fee paid by Real Madrid for Cristiano Ronaldo. This fact had started a debate in Spain about whether Parliament represented value for money. When the financial crisis broke, the Government had proposed salary cuts and freezes for parliamentarians and public servants. As Parliament was autonomous of Government, it had had to implement cuts to its own budgets of around 5%. It was possible to achieve this once without great damage, but it would be a hard process to repeat. The process had led to internal quarrels about which areas of expenditure to cut hardest. It was often hard to take an overview of expenditure, and easier to pick off specific areas of expenditure. The parliamentary budget was also extremely small in terms of the state budget, 0.1%. There had been no redundancies in the parliamentary service.
Mr Alain DELCAMP (France) noted that the issue of budgetary autonomy had been tackled in a recent ASGP questionnaire. In France, the budgets of both assemblies were determined by committees comprising members of the relevant assembly and chaired by a representative of the Court of Accounts. The assembly then drafted a provisional budget, which it transmitted to the Government for insertion in the state budget. Criticising the operations of Parliament was a national sport in France, and because of the financial crisis this had taken on greater force in recent years. In the Senate, measures had been taken to reduce expenditure. Salaries were the major item in the budget – these had been effectively frozen by virtue of being linked to civil service salaries. Far-reaching administrative reforms were under way, and one third of the Administration’s departments and services had been abolished. Parliamentary travel costs had been stabilised, but it was hard to reduce them. The Senate also had its own pension scheme, in theory aligned with the state system, but in practice less costly to the public purse. The main issue was about providing transparency to the public while maintaining autonomy. Key to this was proper explanation.
Mr Ibrahim MOHAMED IBRAHIM (Sudan) explained that the situation in his country was particularly critical given its post-conflict situation. Parliament, despite its budgetary autonomy, needed to help reduce expenditure in this context, and had taken measures to do so, including freezing MPs’ allowances and co-operation with regional parliaments on sharing resources.
Mr Heiki SIBUL (Estonia) talked about the painful budget cuts that had been experienced by his Parliament in recent years, with its costs decreased by as much as 30%. This included cuts in MPs’ expenditure, a freeze in MPs’ pay, a 9% reduction in staff numbers and an 8% cut in staff pay. Investment in parliamentary buildings had stopped. He hoped for a better financial future.
Mr Vladimir SVINAREV (Russian Federation) spoke of the efforts made in his country to make for a more efficient use of parliamentary resources. He asked Dr Schöler if energy-efficient technology use could bring about cost savings in the parliamentary context.
Mrs Barbara GEORGOPOULOU (Greece) spoke of the efforts of the Hellenic Parliament to contribute to reducing the national deficit. There had been a 2 million euro reduction in expenditure, particularly in the areas of international relations and public information. MPs and parliamentary employees had been subject to similar measures: MPs had taken a 20% salary cut, while staff had had their pay reduced by 15%. Non-salary related expenses had also been cut by 20%.
Mr Félix OWANSANGO DEACKEN (Gabon) mentioned the ad hoc committee of both Houses that considered the budget of his national Parliament together with the Ministry of Finance. The Government used the limitations on its income as an argument to limit parliamentary expenditure. But as parliamentarians had the last say, they sometimes voted to take money from other departmental budgets to ensure that they did not lose out. Staff and parliamentarians’ remuneration would never be cut, whatever the financial situation.
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, invited Dr Schöler to conclude the debate.
Dr Ulrich SCHOLER (Germany) noted that he had proposed the idea of this general debate, but thought that he was probably the wrong person to moderate it, given the serious cuts that other Parliaments were experiencing, compared with the relatively benign situation in Germany, where there had been very few cuts in parliamentary spending. In Germany, the draft budget for the Parliament was discussed by parliamentary officials with the Ministry of Finance before further discussion with the Speaker and the Council of Elders. It was then formally presented to Parliament as part of the state budget by the Ministry of Finance, but it was not debated, unlike budgets demanded by the Executive. Parliament represented only 0.2% of the national budget, so any cuts were symbolic in terms of dealing with the national deficit. Salaries were contractual and could not be cut. He could not answer Mr Gran’s question, as he was not an economic expert. He thought that the amount of money paid for a single footballer provided an instructive context for parliamentary spending. The post-conflict situation in a country like Sudan provided a sobering context for looking at budget cuts in a wealthier country like Germany. Nonetheless, the level of cuts in Estonia was very striking. The financial situation in Greece was well-known in Europe. Energy efficiency had been a priority for the German Parliament for some time – the new buildings in Berlin were energy-efficient. In Germany, the budgets for the two Houses were decided on separately, unlike in Gabon. He thanked all those who had participated in the debate.
The sitting ended at 11.36 am.
SECOND SITTING
Monday 4 October 2010 (Afternoon)
Dr Hafnaoui AMRANI, President, in the Chair
Share with your friends: |
