Sitting on 14th September 2011

Summary of Proceedings

SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

(Started at 11:35am)

Rana Muhammad Iqbal Khan, Speaker, assumed the Chair and proceedings commenced with a recitation from the Holy Qur’an and its Urdu translation followed by Naat-e-Rasool-e-Maqbool (PBUH).

Fateha:-

The House offered fateha on the sad demise of dengue virus victims.

Question Hour: −

Questions relating to Livestock and Dairy Development Department were asked and Malik Ahmad Ali Aulakh, Minister for Agriculture (holding additional charge) answered the questions.

At this stage, the House welcomed the honorable guest from India.

RULING OF THE CHAIR ON POINT OF ORDER RAISED BY CHAUDHARY EHSAN-UL-HAQ AHSAN NOLATIA, MPA (PP-253)

During the sitting of the Assembly on 14^th April 2011, Chaudhary Ehsan-ul-Haq Ahsan Nolatia, MPA (PP-253) raised a point of order asking the Chair to give ruling on the matter whether the Business Advisory Committee could take decisions which are in violation of or in conflict with the Rules of Procedure of the Provincial Assembly Punjab, 1997. On 12^th May 2011, Chaudhary Ehsan-ul-Haq Ahsan Nolatia, MPA (PP-253) raised the point again. The Chair reserved the ruling.

The background of the case is that though the list of Questions for a particular day contains 35 Questions, but practically two or three questions came under discussion during the hour allotted for the Assembly Questions and the entire time was consumed in the supplementary questions of these two or three Questions. This issue was raised in the Assembly on a number of occasions by a number of hon’ble Members particularly those who had given the notices of Questions and their Questions could not find the time for discussion despite being included in the Questions’ list.

On the repeated requests of the hon’able Members of the House, the Chair took notice of the issue and the matter was placed before the Business Advisory Committee during its meeting held on 5^th July 2010, the commencing day of 19^th Session of the Assembly. It was agreed with consensus that a time period of three minutes would be allotted for discussion on a Question (including supplementary questions). It was also decided that if the mover of the Question was not present, any other Member, belonging to the party of the same alliance, Government or the Opposition, might take up the question, including supplementary questions, on his/her behalf. It was also agreed that no point of order would be raised during the Question Hour.

This procedure was further streamlined during the meeting of Business Advisory Committee held on October 5, 2010 when it was decided that not more than two supplementary questions would be taken up in respect of a Question. I must draw your attention to the fact that after adopting this procedure, there has been a considerable increase in the number of questions discussed during the Question hour and most of the Members have been expressing their satisfaction on this practice, however, a few of them have been showing their reservations including Chaudhary Ehsan-ul-Haq Ahsan Nolatia, MPA (PP-253).

As stated earlier, Chaudhary Ehsan-ul-Haq Ahsan Nolatia, MPA (PP-253) challenged these decisions of the Business Advisory Committee contending that the Business Advisory Committee had transgressed its powers by imposing such limitations and had violated the provisions of Rules of Procedure 1997.

It would be expedient to look at the relevant provisions of Rules of Procedure, dealing with asking of the Questions. I quote the following rule:-

55.       Mode of asking Questions and answering: -

(1) At the time of asking questions, the Speaker shall call successively each member in whose name a starred question appears in the List of Questions.

(2) The member so called shall rise in his place and, unless he states that it is not his intention to ask the question standing in his name, he shall ask the question by reference to its number on the List of Questions.

(3) If, on a question being called, it is not put or the member in whose name it stands is absent, the Speaker may, at the request of any other member, direct that the answer to it be given.

The word “may” appearing in sub-rule (3) suggests that it is the discretion of the Speaker to allow some member other than the mover to ask the Question on his/her behalf. No member can claim it as a matter of right.

Now coming to the asking of Supplementary Question, I quote rule 56:-

56. Supplementary Questions.– When a starred question has been answered, any member may ask such supplementary questions as may be necessary for the elucidation of the answer, but the Speaker shall disallow a supplementary question which, in his opinion, either infringes any provision of these rules relating to the subject matter and admissibility of questions or is otherwise an abuse of the right of asking questions.

It means that asking of the supplementary questions should not be an abuse of the right of asking questions. The spirit behind the provisions of the above rules is that to accommodate as many members as possible to utilize the Question Hour.

My contention is also supported by the practice adopted in the Lok Sabha, the lower House of Indian Parliament. In its sitting held on 12^th February 1958, it was observed that no member can claim a right to be called to ask a supplementary question. It is left to the discretion of the Chair to call upon any member to ask supplementary question. Precedence in the matter of asking supplementary questions is given to the member who has tabled the main question and to the member whose name is clubbed. (It is quoted in Kaul’s Practice and Procedure of Parliament, fifth edition at page 478).

During the sitting of the Lok Sabha on 8^th July 1971, it was ruled by the Chair that unless there is none to ask a supplementary question from any other Party/Group, not more than one member from the same Party/Group is normally permitted to ask a supplementary question after the member who has tabled the main question.

All of you must appreciate that instead of using his discretion, the Chair considered it appropriate to put the matter before the Business Advisory Committee and the decisions were taken by a body which is represented by the leaders of all the parliamentary parities in the House.

I consider it appropriate to throw some light on the forum of Business Advisory Committee. In all the parliamentary democracies of the world, the Business Advisory Committee (or the House Advisory Committee) is given a special status and the decisions taken by it are honoured as it is represented by the Parliamentary leaders of all the political parties present in the Assembly.

For the functions of the Business Advisory Committee, I quote Rule 186:

186. Composition and functions.– (1) At the commencement of the Assembly or from time to time, as the case may be, the Speaker may, in consultation with the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, nominate a Business Advisory Committee consisting of not more than twelve members including the Speaker who shall be the Chairman of the Committee.

(2)       It shall be the function of the Committee to recommend the time that should be allocated for the discussion of the stage or stages of such Government Bills and other business as the Speaker, in consultation with the Leader of the House, may direct for being referred to the Committee.

(3)       The Committee shall have the power to indicate in the proposed time table, the different hours at which the various stages of the Bill or other business shall be completed.

(4)       The Committee shall have such other functions as may, from time to time, be assigned to it by the Speaker.

In my opinion, this rule authorizes the Business Advisory Committee to make recommendations to streamline the business of the House. The decisions which have been challenged by Chaudhary Ehsan-ul-Haq Ahsan Nolatia, MPA (PP-253), were taken according to the spirit of the rules and the Committee has not violated any provisions of the Rules of Procedure as alleged by the hon’ble MPA.

With this observation, the Point of Order raised by Chaudhary Ehsan-ul-Haq Ahsan Nolatia, MPA (PP-253) is ruled out of order.

Adjournment Motions:-

Seven Adjournment Motions were taken up. Three Motions moved by Shaikh Allaud Din, one regarding selling expired life-saving medicines in Punjab, the second Motion regarding orphan children, whose father names are unknown, should be eligible for NADRA card and the last Motion demanding restructuring of memorial of Sir Ganga Ram at Karim Park, Lahore, the Motion moved by Mrs.‏ Khadija Umar regarding a newspaper report about overcharging amounts by private schools from students in the name of different heads, were disposed of. Two Motions moved by Seemal Kamran, one regarding a newspaper report about illegal hunting of birds migrating from Siberia with the help of Wildlife officials at Rajanpur District was disposed of and other regarding a newspaper report about thousands of licentious dogs, who are biting people in Lahore and the Motion of Mrs.‏ Nighat Sheikh regarding a newspaper report about 50 lady factory workers got unconscious due to chemical leakage in Chichawatni city were kept pending till next week.

The Motions were answered by Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs.

Extension In Time Limit For Laying The Reports:-

On a Motion moved by Rana Muhammad Arshad, the House granted extension up to one month to the Special Committee for laying its report on “The matter 35 shops and eight workshops constructed at Miani Sahib Graveyard premises”.

At this stage, the quorum was pointed out and the House was then adjourned till 10:00 am on Thursday, September, 15, 2011.

Resolutions Passed

Related Business Files