Govt, opposition differ over terms: Parliamentary panel on reconstruction
By Our Staff Reporer
LAHORE, Dec 10: Differences persist between the government and the opposition parties over the terms of reference of the proposed parliamentary committee on relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction. Both sides insist that their point of view is more rational and should prevail. The government says that the opposition is using delaying tactics.
The following is part of the government’s response to the opposition’s letter on the terms of reference: “The government will have no objection to setting up the committee through a resolution of the parliament.
“The government will have no objection in discussing and preparing for an Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Authority (Erra) bill for presentation to the parliament, which will ensure supremacy of and financial accountability by the parliament. We will welcome any suggestions aimed at improving the functioning of the relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction structure.
“The government will have no objection to preparation of a credible accountability and oversight mechanism for the state agencies responsible for relief and rehabilitation.
“The government will have no objection to placing of reports of the proceedings of the committee along with budgetary statements of Erra, federal relief commissioner and President’s Relief Fund before the parliament at suitable intervals.
“The government would ensure that the constitutional authority of NWFP government is fully respected. Any issue in this regard may be discussed in the committee. The committee can frame rules and procedures for its work in accordance with the relevant laws.”
The opposition’s point of view on the terms of reference is as under: “The assurance that the government wishes to address the concerns about parliamentary supremacy, transparency and accountability in the rehabilitation and reconstruction work is welcome. However, we believe that the terms of reference of the government fail to address these concerns that need to be clarified and concretized.
“The assurance of ‘supremacy and financial accountability by the parliament’ as given in item No 3 fails to address either the basic concern namely ‘ensuring civilian supremacy in reconstruction structures’ or ‘financial accountability through the parliament’ as urged by the opposition.
“It is imperative that all reconstruction bodies are headed by civilians to ensure their accountability through existing accountability mechanisms.
“The assurance of ensuring ‘financial accountability by the parliament’ is vague and needs to be concretized with a formal assurance that ‘the reports of the proceedings of the parliamentary committee along with the budgetary statements of Erra, FRC, and the President’s Relief Fund be placed on a quarterly basis before parliament, after consideration by the committee’.
“Furthermore, the assurance to present a bill to the parliament addressing these concerns is not time-bound. In view of the urgency of the tasks involved the shortest possible timeframe needs to be given to formalize the reconstruction efforts through an act of the parliament.
“The assurance to ‘welcome any suggestion aimed at improving the functioning of reconstruction structures’ as given in item No 4 does not address the concern namely the powers of the committee ‘to review, revise and recommend amendments to decisions taken thus far’.
“There is a sea of difference between making suggestions that may be ignored by the government with impunity and the powers to review, revise and recommend amendments to the decisions taken. The reconstruction is a huge and critical task that cannot be left to an administrative body alone without parliament having the powers to review and revise those plans.
“We understand that in a parliamentary system parliamentary committees do not make executive appointments, but it must also be appreciated that in such a system the committees do have powers to approve and confirm executive appointments.”