First: Remarks Regarding the Experiences of Institutional Development in Contemporary Parliaments

3. The Development of the System of Parliamentary Committees

Parliamentary committees perform a significant number of tasks and provide parliament with the capacity to increase its effectiveness and experiences. The committees enable MPs to examine the projects of laws and supervise the government's programs. They also enable citizens to participate in the legislative process.

Despite the differences in number, type, size and task of these committees between one parliament and another, yet they are gaining increased importance as an organizational element in the effectiveness of the legislative councils. The parliamentary committees enable the MPs, particularly in the new developing democracies, to participate effectively in parliamentary action. (ii)

All modern parliaments rely on committees for the direction and management of their affairs. Committees include small numbers of MPs chosen for a temporary or permanent period, to examine and study a number of issues and subjects more thoroughly than if they had been left to the parliament as a while. The American Congress, for example, is described as "a mere group of committees meeting in a hall regularly to approve each other's measures". (iii)

Committees can usually be classified into two types: General and Special. Most general committees review and recommend laws. They may form sub-committees to discuss specific issues and matters. The special committees deal with a specific issue, and then cease to exist after they have completed the role for which they were formed. They usually present a report to the other MPs or public opinion which includes a summary of their views and recommendations regarding the subject or issue which they studied. (iv) In addition to this, there are permanent and temporary joint committees (In parliaments which have two houses) which review issues of common importance to both houses. Sometimes these joint committees are formed to iron out differences and make positions closer over projects of laws or issues which require the approval of both houses of parliament (See in the Annex: Comparative table of committees numbers in 20 contemporary parliaments of 20 countries which are: Argentina, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Namibia, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Thailand, United Kingdom and United States).

Parliaments differ in the strength of their committees, the jurisdictions they have and their numbers. In the French National Assembly for example, the committees have limited powers of decision making. They cannot amend a decree proposed by the government. They can only make some technical modifications on the government's decrees.

In addition, these committees cannot examine the government proposals with enough scrutiny. Their number has been reduced from 20 committees in the constitution of the Fifth Republic to only six at present. In contrast to such committees in France and Britain, their equivalent in Germany have similar power to those in the American Congress.

German parliamentary committees are the real and indispensable legislative "Kitchen" in the German Bundestag. In the American Congress, legislative action depends on permanent and small subsidiary sub-committees, which are sometimes described as "small legislative councils". The huge number of legislations, can thus be spread out making the work far more effective and enabling thousands of legislations to be dealt with within one parliamentary session which goes on for two years. Each of these legislations is dealt with separately in the Lower House (parliament) and Upper House (Senate) with all their representative bodies. Without the abovementioned committees, this huge legislative achievement would not have been possible.

In a comparative study of the numbers of MPs in a parliament and the number of permanent committees in it, using eleven parliaments as a base, it was found that the sizes of parliaments varied between 120 - 662 members, and the number of committees was between 6 - 38. Other studies showed that the sizes and numbers of committee members were linked, to a large extent, to their effectiveness and impact on legislative action.

The ideal size of a committee - for it to remain effective in the performance of its role- was between 13 - 25.

In some parliaments, such as the American Congress, it is possible to use experts and specialized people in some committees, and any committee can form subsidiary sub-committees (In 1993 the Lower House of Congress formed 22 permanent committees and 118 subsidiary sub-committees. Each of the two houses of Congress can form special or selected committees to discuss particular issues. Because of the increase in the work of committees, the permanent ones formed over 300 subsidiary sub-committees to assist them).

The continuity and frequency of meetings differ between one parliament and another. In some cases, the committees meet at other times than during normal parliament sessions. In other countries, the committees meet, whether parliament is in a legislative session period or not. This is the case in the British House of Lords and the Canadian House of Commons and the French Senate and the Irish Senate and the National Assembly in Namibia and in Portugal and the Romanian Senate and the Upper and Lower Houses of the American Congress, and in the People's Council and Consultative Council in Egypt and in the Palestine National Council.

Decisions are taken in committees, by simple majorities of the MPs present as long as a quorum has been ascertained. Votes are usually taken by a show of hands. Some committees allow voting by proxy where some absent members delegate their votes to their fellow MPs. In 1995 the American Lower House of Congress cancelled proxy voting in its committees.

A question asked here is whether the public can attend committee meetings of not? In most instances, this matter is decided by the constitution of the country or the regulations and rules of the legislative power itself. Some constitutions allow public presence at committee meetings thus allowing citizens and the press to attend. Other countries constitutions do not grant this right, but the regulations and traditions of the parliament or its committees allow it.

The parliaments which allow the public to attend the committee meetings are those of Argentina, Costa Rica, Hungary, the United States. In some legislative councils the committees hold closed meetings which the public cannot attend unless their attendance is necessary, because of protection of secrecy or for national security reasons. This exists in Germany, India, Namibia and Senegal.

The open meetings of parliamentary committees enable the public to follow closely the discussions taking place and it becomes conscious of the way members voted and what they said during the deliberations. On the other hand, the attendance of the public entails certain risks which affect the work of the committees especially when their presence may sometimes prevent the committee members from expressing their views and conceptions freely or perhaps hinders them from reaching middle solutions or agreement among each other as they do in closed sessions.

According to a survey conducted in 1986 in over 82 parliaments, if was observed that 49 of them generally or always conducted special sessions for their committees, 12 conducted both special and public sessions, and 21 always or usually conducted open sessions. Some of the committees allow the public to have access to the records of their meetings and to write summaries on these meetings or on what observer committees recount. Usually the records of these meetings are published without any problems.

The composition of MPs membership in permanent committees reflects the strengths of the various parties represented in the legislative council as a whole. For example, in the German Bundestag, the principle of equity in party representation permeates over membership in committees. The majority party dominates all the committees of the Bundestag.

The situation is not very different in the parliaments of Bulgaria, Canada, France, Hungary, the United Kingdom and the United States where electoral support of parties decides representation in committees.

In France, small parties are not permitted to be represented in parliamentary committees. For any party to be represented, it must have at least 20 seats in the National Assembly. In contrast to this, the Portuguese parliament allows small parties to be represented in committees by only one member in one committee out of three. In El Salvador, the small parties have one member in every committee of the legislative council. Even if it had one member in the parliament as a whole, he will still be a member of all the parliament's committees.

Parliaments differ in the method of appointing the chairmen of committees. In the American Congress, the majority party leads all the committees of Congress while in the German Bundestag the chairmanship of committees is based on the number of seats gained by each party. In the British parliament, the majority party leads all the committees with the exception of the treasury committee. In addition to this, committee members become "specialized" in the fields they represent after serving in a particular committee for some time and gaining experience in its field. MPs usually tend to join the committees whose concerns are nearest to their fields of specialization or which are important for their electoral district. (v)

The appointment of committee staff and cadres differ from one parliament to another. Some parliaments have large professional cadres supporting the parliamentary committees while others do not have such professional cadres. The number and quality of these cadres reflect the importance of parliamentary committees to the legislative system. When these committees have focal importance - as in the American Congress - there is a greater need for professional staff with specialized experience and wide jurisdiction. When committees are not vital or less important, only a small staff with limited administrative and technical jurisdiction exists.

In Canada, the size of committees staff is limited, and their role is restricted to calling witnesses, organizing meetings and preparing cases. A study of legislative institutions undertaken in 1993 showed that Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Honduras lacked trained cadres of support in their parliamentary committees. In most committees, there was only one specialized support staff member appointed by the general secretariat or the general secretary.

Sometimes cadres from the executive apparatuses are asked to help perform specific tasks in the parliamentary committees which inevitably affects the objectivity and neutrality of their work. Some parliaments allow their committees to use external experts and specialized people for certain subjects or issues.

Competition usually arises as a consequence of the variety, size, and importance of areas of concern of the various parliamentary committees. Sometimes this may go as far as leading to struggles and differences. One of the ways to coordinate the work of committees is through dividing the complicated tasks into sub-sections each taken over by a specific committee, as is the case in the American Congress. In some cases, a sub-committee is formed among the many committees as in the Polish Parliament. A third solution is allowing the many committees to present their recommendations to a central committee, as in the Swedish Parliament.

The importance of a parliamentary committee lies in its being a "Policy Kitchen". Because the common ground in parliamentary matters is that parliament does not discuss a subject before referring it over to one or more of its committees in what is called joint committees. Such committees will discuss it and reach a position which they present to parliament for further disunion.

Generally, parliamentary committees are of two types, (vi) the permanent ones i.e. the standing committees, whether they deal individually or jointly with a subject referred to them and the special committees or Ad-Hoc, temporary committees which parliament forms for particular reasons to discuss a particular issue and which are dissolved as soon as they perform their action or after parliament issues a decree dissolving them or announcing contentment for what they had done.

Listening committees are considered special committees because they are formed for a particular purpose, temporary in nature, and dissolved as soon as their business terminated.

In other words, listening committees are special committees formed by parliament for the purpose of hearing many parties and differing ideas which are presented to them in the subject they are dealing with, and which is supposed to be part of parliament's specialization. In addition, the stable rule in parliamentary jurisprudence is that the origin or source contains its branches, consequently, permanent standing committees can perform the functions of Ad-Hoc or special temporary committees while the opposite is not true. In other words, permanent-standing committees can perform the functions of listening committees while the latter cannot be transformed into permanent committees or perform their functions. The following are the characteristics of listening special Ad-Hoc committees as a monitoring tool:

• The monitoring here is of the actions of the executive power and does not extend to the actions of the judiciary power.
• It is an important monitoring tool used by parliament to check and face the executive power and the government apparatuses.
• It is the monitoring tool that applies to the greatest degree the idea of collective action among MPs in their monitoring functions. This is why it is distinguished by its "democratic" feature.
• It performs its functions in a practical method and within an "on the field" framework, whether this takes place inside parliament buildings or outside them. In this, the mechanism of the listening committee has a particular feature in comparison to other monitoring tools such as parliamentary questions and discussions.
• It has a public feature in its actions. While we find that permanent standing committees tend to be based on secrecy, unless the government decides otherwise, the core of the listening committees meetings lies in their openness - unless otherwise decided.
• By their very nature these committees are open, the dates of their meetings are announced in advance and get full coverage from all sectors of the media.

Monitoring methods have a special position in parliamentary action because their action represents a vivid example of people's monitoring of their governments.

However the person acquainted with the literature on parliamentary life in the Arab World notices two major things:
First: The concern with monitoring tools concentrates in the first place on direct methods, most prominent of which is interrogation. Interrogation reflects a direct accusation against the executive power, and may lead to a vote of confidence in ministers, even if this was only theoretical. What supports this, is that the government itself is most concerned, in its relation to parliament, by interrogations. All the concerned ministers and the MPs initiating it, prepare themselves for this battle engagement. Public opinion, represented by parliamentary correspondents and the press, in general, and the opposition in particular, tend to follow closely the development of these interrogations; and start making predictions over the realities of the interrogation and the ability of the minister concerned to answer it. This happens despite the knowledge that the interrogation may only lead to no more than "moving to the other item on the agenda of action of the parliament" which is the decent way of saying that the interrogation has been refused and that the minister concerned and the government still have the confidence of parliament. In other words, the great concern with the mechanism of interrogation has more a dramatic impact and does not act as a real effective political monitory tool.

This is despite the fact that these were prominent cases in which what is similar to real battles between MPs and ministers occurred, even if these battles were not balanced.

The other thing is that the listening tool does not at all have a fair share of parliamentary or media interest, despite its parliamentary importance and its features as a collective democratic method to monitor government action. There are three major ways to exercise the mechanism of listening, namely through the standing permanent parliamentary committees; through committees that undertake field visits and through a special Ad-Hoc committee formed particularly for this purpose. The parliament, in the latter case, aims at thorough research and listening to the various points of view pertaining to two subjects discussed.

The listening committees, as mentioned above, are characterized by being the most open tools for parliamentary monitoring. This means that those who participate in their work come from different backgrounds, whether in giving opinions or following their action. There are three types of active participants in these committees, namely the committee members i.e. the actual members of the Ad-Hoc committees or members of the parliament as a whole (The latter have the full right to attend the meetings of the committee and participate in laying down its agenda of actions and discussions); the specialists (Whether from government agencies or others) and there are the ones invited so that the committee can listen to their views on subjects covered by the agenda, and the citizens, who are following up the actions of the committee as media people or citizens concerned with the issue.

The essence in the effectiveness of the listening committee are the deliberations, following the general rule in parliamentary action which considers parliament a platform for discussions and deliberations so that this action does not become that of one administrative party working according to pre-written agendas prepared maybe by people other than MPs. There is no doubt that supplying committees with all the technical means necessary for them to perform their legislative and monitoring duties leads to an improvement in their performance and their ability to perform their task better. This is why parliaments try to help their committees through providing them with all the documents, data, information and studies which ensure success in the study of all aspects of the issues for which they convened. This also helps in preparing the reports which they present to parliament. (viii)

The committees should also be supported by specialized employees and researchers to assist in the accomplishment of their legislative and monitoring tasks in the best way possible. The French Parliament is a good example to follow in this respect. In fact, the French National Assembly created in 1983 a directorate linked to it whose duty is to measure the applicability of scientific and technological findings and present reports on them to MPs, so as to help them make their decisions. (viii) The number of MPs in a listening committee is decided on the basis of its mission and its nature i.e. whether it is a standing permanent committee or a special Ad-Hoc one.

In reality, there are no regulations or material and human obstacles in Arab parliaments which could prevent the use of this important tool. Yet, it has not been sufficiently used and has not fulfilled its required role in parliamentary monitoring action; as is the case in the American Congress or the Czech Parliament or the Palestine National Council.

Maybe this is due to political or practical reasons which we will summarize as follows:
First, political/cultural reasons, pertaining to the sensitivity of the issue of listening and the massive exposing impact which the listening tool could trigger when activated in its natural or imagined scopes. This exists in terms of the variety and differences in opinions it entails and in dealing with the opposition and rejectionists in all their possible varieties and the criticisms they could present to parliament, especially over controversial issues and at times when "the public good" necessitates the postponement of differences and requires the unity behind the present policies. This sensitivity becomes more acute when media coverage of the deliberations of the listening tool spreads out widely enough to include the various political elements and their party or ideological backgrounds and the positions, ideas and arguments they present, which could cause what some may see as "Chaos".

This political sensitivity also increases further and further when the listening committees unanimously agree after hearing the different views of government officials and other experts outside the governing apparatus. Anyone invited to participate in these committees' deliberations and is heard will feel that he got an official recognition of his expertise and influence. Sensitivity may result from listening to those concerned with the problem or issue being discussed i.e. the end users from the citizens and not only from the technocrats and experts, where it is expected and natural that hearing their views is accompanied by a request for accountability, particularly if the listening bodies move to where events happened outside parliament.