The data compiled by PRS Legislative Research say a lot about the changed environment in Parliament since the formation of the Modi government. The Lok Sabha worked for 104 per cent of the time allotted to it. In other words, it worked more and sat longer than what the original schedule had prescribed. The Rajya Sabha did better, as it worked for 106 per cent of its scheduled duration of business. Yes, the Upper House saw some disruptions - but the elders made good that loss by working late on several days of the week in the session.
Compare this with the data available for the last 10 years and you would be able to appreciate the extent of the change. Only once in the last decade were India's parliamentarians more productive than their performance in the July-August 2014 Budget session. That was the monsoon session of Parliament in 2005, when they worked for 110 per cent of the scheduled duration of business. The first Budget session in 2009 was as productive as the one that ended last month, but the one in 2004 was a major disappointment with parliamentarians working for only 64 per cent of the time scheduled for business.
More From This Section
There is another positive aspect of the rise in productivity of India's parliamentarians. The number of questions that ministers had to answer orally in Parliament went up sharply. The Lok Sabha set a 10-year record in this respect. Almost 24 per cent of the questions scheduled during the Budget session were answered by the respective ministers. The Rajya Sabha was a laggard in this area as only 15 per cent of the scheduled questioned were answered. But then even this performance was a three-year high.
Remember that the convention of ministers answering questions on the floor of the house enhances the government's accountability to Parliament and, therefore, to the people of this country. The process also makes the government more transparent as it is often obliged to share with parliamentarians the process of decision-making and relevant public information. The steady decline in the number of questions orally answered by the ministers from 2011 was a matter of serious concern. That the trend has been reversed is a welcome development. Whatever be the cause of this turnaround, the Modi government and parliamentarians representing both the ruling and opposition parties would do well to take all the necessary steps to maintain and improve the trajectory of this change.
However, a closer study of the data compiled by PRS Legislative Research brings out two areas of concern. And both of them pertain to the nature and quality of discussion that takes place in the first Budget session of a new government. A Lok Sabha session that passes the Budget should naturally devote more time to discussing financial issues. But the just-concluded Budget session of the Lok Sabha devoted only a third of its time to discussing financial matters. In sharp contrast, the Budget session of 2009 devoted half its time to discussing financial issues. In other words, the 15th Lok Sabha certainly discussed and debated the Budget in 2009 far more intensively and for a longer period.
One explanation for this could be the nature of the Budget the Modi government presented on July 10. It was a largely conformist Budget that refrained from making any controversial or radical policy announcements, and instead maintained continuity with past budgets by focussing on expenditure allocation for the government's pet programmes and commitment to fiscal consolidation. The other explanation could be that legislative Bills took up more time in the first Budget session of the Modi government. Whatever be the reason, it is a little odd that a Budget session that is expected to spend more time on discussing fiscal matters raised by the annual financial statement actually ends up spending less.
The second area of concern - and this is more serious - is the declining share of time spent on debating the financial allocations made for individual ministries in the Budget. The PRS Legislative Research data show that over the last decade, the financial allocations for only four or five central ministries have been discussed in detail before the passage of the Budget. In other words, almost 90 per cent of the financial allocations for different central ministries are "guillotined" and approved without any discussion.
This year, too, the financial allocations for only four central ministries, accounting for about six per cent of the total central Budget, were discussed, while the remaining 94 per cent of the demands for grants were "guillotined" (a parliamentary phrase suggesting the clubbing together of all such demands that could not be discussed) and voted on. It is time the sanctity of parliamentary scrutiny of how the government should spend the taxpayer's money was restored. The share of ministries whose financial allocations are guillotined must decline progressively in a manner that is feasible and pragmatic.