‘Powers in anti-defection law need to be redefined’
NEW DELHI: Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla completed two years in office on Saturday. In his tenure, the House has broken records in the participation of MPs, performance of the House, and legislation cleared. He tells Saubhadra Chatterji that anti-defection laws require changes, and parliamentary oversight must be strengthened. Edited excerpts:
You complete two years in office. How has your experience been?
It’s been a great experience. We have been able to strengthen the democratic traditions and work continues even during the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, we reached an average of 122% productivity in the last five sessions. The one during Covid recorded 167% productivity. In the first session, 33 bills were passed in 37 sittings. These figures underline the commitment of our parliamentarians to perform their duties.
One of your strategies has been to give more time for MPs to speak in the House.
MPs participated 1,744 times in the sessions in last two years. Debates ran longer than their allotted times. This shows the responsibility and eagerness of the MPs to actively participate in the lawmaking process. I have noticed that every MP wants to talk about issues related to their constituency. I remember once 161 MPs spoke in a day. My job is to provide maximum opportunity to elected representatives. Earlier, issues raised in Zero Hour didn’t attract the government’s response. Now, the government responds... I also persuade MPs and ministers to keep their queries and answers short, so that more questions can be taken up in Question Hour.
Most of your predecessors have been veterans in Parliament but you are in your second term. Did you face any difficulties handling senior MPs?
Initially, I thought the Speaker’s post would be a challenge. But I regularly communicate with all MPs, and it helped me secure their cooperation. Without their support, I can never run the House.
Many MPs requested you to start online meetings of the standing committees. But it was not allowed.
When rules were framed by eminent people in the past, no one imagined that such a situation would arise one day. Rule 266 envisaged the proceedings would be secret so that MPs can rise above partisan lines in their deliberations. While some people demanded digital meetings, many opposed it. The rules can only be changed in a Parliament session, but no such demand was made in the first session during Covid. It would have been better if the demands were raised then.
Some Opposition MPs also alleged that their issues such as economic situation or job loss are never taken up for discussion.
Who is stopping them? There are several avenues to raise issues. They can put questions in the Question Hour or raise any issue in Zero Hour. In both cases, the government will reply to them.
You are now dealing with appeals under the anti-defection law. The presiding officers’ conference had discussed this issue at length but nothing happened thereafter.
All presiding officers were unanimous that the legislative speakers’ power in the Tenth Schedule needs to be redefined, and I agree. Political situation was different when the Schedule was enacted. People remained committed to the ideology of their parties. But the situation has changed.
What are your targets for the next three years?
I want to strengthen parliamentary oversight to make the ministries and departments more accountable to Parliament. We are developing a mechanism to ensure that the government looks into all matters raised under Rule 377 and executive action is taken on all suggestions of the standing committees. We have started 24x7 service for members. We will strengthen our research wing to help MPs come better prepared.