New rules to rein in the unruly

A new version of Parliamentary Standing Orders to be presented to address current concerns:

by Uditha Kumarasinghe

As concerns are being expressed about the unparliamentary behaviour of some legislators with the law makers discipline being questioned by the public, the Parliament is poised to amend the Standing Orders in a bid to address several key issues.

In an interview with the Sunday Observer, Secretary General of Parliament Dhammika Dasanayake said, the current Standing Orders have been amended to suit the current requirements. The new draft places emphasis on two aspects: update the House Rules and address new areas.

According to the Secretary General, the Standing Orders date back to 1912 and hardly reflect the current concerns. First introduced to regulate the business of the Legislative Council, the Standing Orders were subsequently amended to suit the new Legislature.

Finally amended in 1993, some 23 years ago, they reflect a House reality that is at least a quarter century old.

Article 74 (1) of the 1978 Constitution provides for the making of regulations - or Standing Orders - to regulate the business of the House and the provision is now being utilised to introduce some significant changes. Excerpts:

Q : Are you considering serious amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament?

A : The Standing Orders regulate the business of the House and have to be updated to meet the current requirements of the House. Unfortunately, we have not been able to update them for a long time. During the last couple of months, we have seen many new changes such as new committees, new features like Prime Minister's question time. Now we want to formalise them by incorporating them into the Standing Orders.

Q: There is criticism that the Standing Orders are severely outdated and don't reflect current context. What is your view?

A : Erskine May's treatise guides us in our day today proceedings. The Standing Orders date back to 1912. From that time onwards, we have has codified Standing Orders. Post 1948, these House Rules have further evolved.

It is true that they are outdated. That is because, we have not updated them as we went along. But subject to that, they reflect the needs of our Parliament very much and deserve to be updated to suit our current legislative realities.

Q: Do you think that amending the Standing Orders alone could solve the discipline issues that plague the Parliament?

A : That is also one way of addressing a persistent issue. There are also suggestions that we have to enhance the penal provisions in our Standing Orders to suit the present context.

Q : Have you obtained expert advice and derived from other parliamentary traditions?

A : Yes, we indeed have.

The right to respond is something that we have adopted by looking at Standing Orders of some other countries where similar provisions are available. Sectoral Committees closely reflect the Select Committees of the House of Commons in the UK and also the Congressional Select Committees in the US.

So they do reflect some of the best traditions and systems currently available. We have studied other systems as well.

Q : What is the consensus among the experts who are proposing amendments to the Standing Orders? Are they considering enhancement of the penal provisions to deal with misconduct in the House?

A : At the Business Committee discussions, sentiments have been expressed that punishment may have a deterrent effect and therefore should be enhanced. Actually, it is not for us to decide.

But there is a great possibility that when the final draft is adopted, it may contain provisions that lay grater emphasis on the penal provisions.

Parliament is unable punish legislators for violating the Standing Orders through the imposition of a sentence or a fine. Such possibilities are taken away through the Parliamentary Privileges Act. At the moment, what the House can do is to suspend legislators who breach the Standing Orders.

Even the parliamentarians are of the view that the system fails to to have a strong deterrent effect. However, no decision has been taken yet.

Q : Is it your view that the proposed new Code of Conduct for MPs will ensure better discipline?

A : It is always good to have a written Code of Conduct which offers guidance for all Members of Parliament with regard to their personal and collective conduct. When you do not have anything to guide, there is also no need to be guided.When there is a Code of Conduct and everybody accept it, that becomes the expected standard behaviour. it is how one is expected to behave once elected or nominated to the House. It is about time that we have one and one which will help us maintain better decorum.

Q:There is also a call for not just minimum behavioural standards but also education? What is your view?

A : I have a mixed feelings about it.

This is because, I do know of a couple of parliamentarians who did not have sufficient formal education but their political acumen could not be matched. They were visionaries and served the country well. Why should such persons be excluded simply because of a call for higher levels of education among legislators?

There is massive public support for a new provision that calls for minimum education. This may be good for the future. The other side of the coin is that, we have had educated parliamentarians whose contributions to the House have not been so impressive.

-----------

[Proposed amendments]

Through the proposed amendments, proceedings of the House shall be available for broadcast over radio, television or any other electronic devices, subject to the rules and conditions of Parliament.

Standing Orders will provide for an Adjournment Motion for an hour-long debate at the end of the main business of the House. That is the regularisation of a procedure that has been adopted by virtue of a decision taken by Party Leaders.

Provision will be made for the Prime Minister’s Question Time. At the moment, this is a practice adopted with the agreement of the Party Leaders. It will be formalised and included in the Standing Orders.

Electronic voting will be introduced to the House and the process will be explained in the new version of the House Rules.

Some serious amendments will include the repeal of provisions pertaining to Urgent Bills, in keeping with 19 th Amendment to the Constitution.

It has been proposed to increase penal provisions to deal with violations of Standing Orders. It is proposed that violators could be subjected to suspension for one week in the first instance and in the second and third instances, for two weeks and one month respectively. Whether this time frame can be extended if the situation warrants it, is currently under consideration by the Party Leaders.

It is proposed that the House recognise the ‘Right to Respond.’ In advanced parliaments, if certain allegations are made against someone who cannot reply in parliament, this mechanism will provide for directly responding to the Speaker in writing. If the Speaker is satisfied that the said party is sufficiently aggrieved by the comments made in the House, the response may me included and recorded in the Hansard.

New Sectoral Oversight Committees are to be set up.

It has also been proposed to introduce a Committee on Ethics and Standing Orders. In addition to the Standing Orders, this particular committee will be empowered to look at the ethics and the conduct of the members and to expand its scope to cover this new area, as required.

The draft Standing Orders seek to introduce a new Committee on Public Finance. This committee, headed by TNA legislator M.A. Sumanthiran has already been appointed. The committee will be given a wide range of powers through the amended Standing Orders.

A new Committee on Constitutional Affairs will study all the reports of the independent commissions set up under the 19 th Amendment to the Constitution.

The Public Petitions Committee will be empowered with some powers to issue directives. The relevant Minister will be required to report back to Parliament as to what actions will be taken on the Committee’s recommendations on a particular issue, within a stipulated time frame.

It is proposed to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office, a common feature in many foreign parliaments. This will be an independent body and not connected to the Executive.