Congressional and Parliamentary Committees

Its limits. It works after the money has been spent; it cannot question policy, only its execution; and its reports are recommendations.

2. The Estimates Committee

What it does. It examines the estimates included in the budget and suggests economies, improvements in organisation, efficiency and administrative reform consistent with the policy underlying the estimates. It is sometimes described as a continuous economy committee.

Its limits. It works on estimates rather than on actual expenditure, cannot question policy laid down by Parliament, and its suggestions are recommendations.

3. The Committee on Public Undertakings

What it does. It examines the reports and accounts of public undertakings and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General on them, and considers whether the affairs of the undertakings are being managed in accordance with sound business principles and prudent commercial practices.

Its limits, which are the interesting ones. It is expressly not to examine matters of major government policy as distinct from business or commercial functions, nor matters of day to day administration, nor matters for consideration of which machinery is established by any special statute. Those exclusions exist because of the autonomy problem described in [Liability of and Control over Public Corporations]: the more closely the legislature examines an undertaking's daily working, the less autonomous it is, and autonomy was the reason for creating it.

The departmentally related standing committees

A system of standing committees, each attached to a group of ministries, was created to give the House a continuous means of examining every department. Their functions are, in substance:

1. To consider the demands for grants of the ministries concerned and report on them, before the demands are voted.
2. To examine Bills referred to them.
3. To consider the annual reports of the ministries.
4. To consider national basic long term policy documents presented to the House and referred to them.

They are expressly not to consider matters of day to day administration.

This is the most significant development in Indian legislative scrutiny, because it gives every ministry a committee that examines its demands for grants every year, which is scrutiny before the money is voted rather than after it is spent.

The Committee on Subordinate Legislation

Each House has one, and it examines whether the powers to make rules delegated by the legislature are being properly exercised. It is treated in full in [Legislative Control over Delegated Legislation], where its eight heads of scrutiny are set out.

Committees on the business of the House

Briefly, because they are examinable as a list: the Business Advisory Committee, the Committee on Petitions, the Committee of Privileges, the Committee on Government Assurances, which pursues undertakings given by ministers on the floor, the Committee on Absence of Members, and the Rules Committee.

The comparison with congressional committees

The syllabus head says "Congressional and Parliamentary Committees", so the comparison must be made.

The single sentence for an answer: congressional committees are powerful because the executive is outside the legislature, and parliamentary committees are consensual because it is inside. The American system produces confrontation and independence; the parliamentary system produces agreed reports with no power to compel.

The limits of committee control generally

1. Reports are recommendations. No committee can compel the Government.
2. They work after the event, apart from the departmentally related committees examining demands for grants.
3. Volume. The expenditure and activity of a modern government exceed what any committee can examine, so they proceed by sampling.
4. Party discipline. The majority of a committee ordinarily belongs to the governing party, though the convention that the Public Accounts Committee is chaired by a member of the Opposition mitigates this.
5. They do not reach the individual citizen's grievance, which is the gap the Ombudsman was invented for: [The Ombudsman].

A worked example

The Comptroller and Auditor General reports that a central undertaking bought equipment at three times the market rate without tendering.

1. The report is laid before Parliament under Article 151.
2. The Public Accounts Committee takes it up, summons the Secretary of the administrative ministry and the Chairman of the undertaking, examines them in private, and reports to the House that the purchase was irregular and that responsibility should be fixed.
3. The Committee on Public Undertakings may examine whether the undertaking's affairs are being managed according to sound business principles and prudent commercial practices, but it will not examine the Government's underlying policy on domestic procurement, which is outside its remit.
4. The departmentally related standing committee for the ministry considers the point when examining its demands for grants for the next year, which is scrutiny before money is voted.
5. What none of them can do is punish anybody. That requires departmental proceedings, a reference to the Central Vigilance Commission, or a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean committees can compel the Government. They report and recommend.

It does not mean they examine policy. The financial committees are confined to execution, and the Committee on Public Undertakings expressly excludes major policy and day to day administration.

It does not mean Indian committees are like congressional ones. The difference follows from where the executive sits.

It does not mean committee work is invisible. Reports are presented to the House and published, and publicity is the sanction.

Quick revision

1. Committees exist because the House lacks the time, the size, the privacy and the expertise to scrutinise the administration on the floor. They are constituted under the rules made under Articles 118 and 208, with privileges under Articles 105 and 194.
2. Standing committees are permanent; ad hoc committees cease on reporting.
3. Public Accounts Committee: examines appropriation and finance accounts and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, appointed under Article 148 and laid under Article 151. Conventionally chaired by a member of the Opposition.
4. Estimates Committee: examines the budget estimates and suggests economies and administrative reform, consistent with the policy underlying the estimates.
5. Committee on Public Undertakings: examines the reports and accounts of public undertakings and the auditor's reports on them, asking whether they are managed on sound business principles; expressly excludes major policy, day to day administration and matters with their own statutory machinery.
6. Departmentally related standing committees: consider demands for grants before they are voted, Bills referred to them, annual reports and long term policy documents; not day to day administration.
7. Committee on Subordinate Legislation: scrutiny of delegated legislation.
8. Congressional against parliamentary: the American executive is outside the legislature, so committees are independent, have strong subpoena powers and hold public hearings; the parliamentary executive is inside it, so committees sit in private, produce consensual reports and only recommend.

Test yourself

1. Why does a legislature work through committees, and how are they classified? Because the House as a whole cannot do the work: it has limited sitting days, too many members to examine an official, proceedings that are public and adversarial, and no continuity of expertise. A committee is small, sits in private, returns to the same subject year after year and can examine officials and call for documents. Committees are classified into standing committees, which are permanent and reconstituted periodically, including the financial committees, the departmentally related standing committees and committees on the business of the House, and ad hoc committees, appointed for a particular purpose such as a select or joint committee on a Bill, which cease to exist once they report. They are constituted under rules of procedure made under Article 118 for Parliament and Article 208 for a State legislature.

2. Describe the three financial committees. The Public Accounts Committee examines the accounts showing the appropriation of sums granted by the House, the finance and appropriation accounts, and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, asking whether money was spent on the purpose voted, whether the expenditure was authorised and whether there was waste, loss or irregularity; it is conventionally chaired by a member of the Opposition. The Estimates Committee examines the estimates in the budget and suggests economies and improvements in organisation, efficiency and administrative reform, consistent with the policy underlying the estimates. The Committee on Public Undertakings examines the reports and accounts of public undertakings and the auditor's reports on them, and considers whether their affairs are managed in accordance with sound business principles and prudent commercial practices, while expressly excluding matters of major government policy, matters of day to day administration, and matters for which special statutory machinery exists.

3. What are the departmentally related standing committees, and why are they significant? They are standing committees each attached to a group of ministries, whose functions are to consider the demands for grants of those ministries and report on them, to examine Bills referred to them, to consider the ministries' annual reports, and to consider long term national policy documents referred to them; they do not consider matters of day to day administration. They are significant because they give every ministry a committee that examines its demands for grants each year, which is scrutiny before the money is voted rather than after it has been spent, and because they extend systematic committee scrutiny to the whole of the administration rather than to finance alone.

4. Compare congressional committees with parliamentary committees. The difference follows from the constitutional setting. In the United States the executive is outside the legislature, so congressional committees are genuinely independent of it: they hold public hearings, have strong powers to compel testimony and documents, substantially rewrite legislation and can block it, and party discipline is weaker so members act independently. In a parliamentary system the executive sits in the legislature and commands its majority, so committees sit in private, examine officials rather than confront ministers, and produce reports that are often unanimous precisely because they are not televised political events; they recommend, and the Government decides whether to act. The American arrangement produces confrontation and real power; the parliamentary arrangement produces consensus without compulsion.

5. What are the limitations of committee control over the administration? Their reports are recommendations and cannot compel the Government. Most of them work after the event, the departmentally related committees examining demands for grants being the exception. The volume of modern government activity exceeds what any committee can examine, so they necessarily proceed by sampling. The majority on a committee ordinarily belongs to the governing party, though the convention that the Public Accounts Committee is chaired by a member of the Opposition mitigates this. And no committee reaches the individual citizen's grievance about how he personally was treated, which is the gap that the Ombudsman institution was created to fill.