People's Democracy

  THE WEEK IN PARLIAMENT

Subhas Ray

WHEN the Lok Sabha resumed its sitting on the first day of second week on August 1, it was adjourned immediately after paying rich tributes to the sitting CPI(M) member, Bikash Chaudhuri who passed away in the early hours of the same day at a hospital in New Delhi.  He was a member of the 12th and 13th Lok Sabha.

On August 4, the House witnessed an unprecedented drama enacted by the lone Trinamul Congress member Mamata Banarjee. The House was aghast when she flung papers at the deputy speaker in the chair, then cast aspersions on the chair, and then tendered ‘so-called’ resignation to deputy speaker(!) – it was yet another  drama enacted by her. There was furore in the House at the irresponsible behaviour of Mamata Banarjee resulting in adjournment of the House twice. Her action and derogatory remarks against the speaker has damaged the prestige of Lok Sabha and some members became furious against these postures and behaviour of her. The House condemned this incident. “If we flout decorum and fail to maintain dignity in the House and show disrespect to speaker, deputy speaker and chair, then it will tantamount to showing disrespect to democracy”, said the parliamentary affairs minister, Gulam Nabi Azad. However, the speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, made the position clear the next day through a statement. He said that since one adjournment motion on the same subject was admitted on July 26, 2005 and there was a full and comprehensive discussion on the question of infiltration of foreigners into our country, including infiltration from Bangladesh, the rules did not permit raising of the same matter twice in one session through adjournment motion. He pointed out that the concerned member did not choose to take part in the debate nor remained present in the House during the discussion. Underlining that rules will have to prevail at all times and for all, he said that whatever may have been the feeling, it could not and cannot ever justify in indulging in behaviour as happened.  The speaker rebutted her charge thus: ‘I wish to repudiate categorically and with all the authority of the chair and with all sincerity the reprehensible insinuation that my decision was promoted by political considerations. Making such allegations was a deliberate attempt to insult the chair and thereby insult the House as a whole”, the speaker said strongly.

DISCUSSION ON PETRO HIKE

Rajya Sabha held a discussion on a Calling Attention Motion regarding the recent hike in prices of petrol and diesel. Participating in the debate, CPI(M) deputy leader, Dipankar Mukherjee highlighted the fact that the price hike had nothing to do with the increase in international crude oil price but more to do with the taxation policies of the government. He said the customs duty and excise duty component in the price per litre of petrol and diesel is much higher than the fuel part of the price. It was the non-fuel part of the price that is agitating the public mind as well as that of the House and the standing committees. He questioned why there should be any price rise on account of tax and duty other than the global price. He criticised the government for imposing a double burden on the consumers. He also questioned whether it was prudent for the government to impose a road cess of fifty paise in addition to the existing Rs 1.50 cess at a time when the international price of crude oil was on the rise. Regarding excise duty, Mukherjee referred to the government’s statements that the pricing mechanism is to balance the interests of various stakeholders – consumers, oil companies and government. “Is the burden of price rise being equitably shared between them”, he asked and said that its was not. “In fact, it is being shared by oil companies and the consumers. But there are two other stakeholders. The finance ministry, in the form of taxes and duties, raised Rs 1,70,000 crore last year and the stand alone private refineries who are making unbridled profits at the expense of oil companies and the people.” He said that sharing of this revenue is not being done equitably between the central government and state governments. Referring to the other major gainer here – about whom Pramod Mahajan (BJP) did not say a word – the stand-alone private refineries, those that are not involved in marketing. The problem of the public sector companies is that other than the refining margin, they have to bear a part of the subsidy. But those who are not involved in marketing, the stand-alone refineries, even the biggest of them do not share this burden. Mukherjee then insisted the government to come clean as to why the finance ministry and the stand-alone refineries were not sharing the burden? Why should the subsidy be shared by the ONGC and GAIL alone and not by a private refiner which is having a limitless refining margin? He demanded the minister to state how much is the refining margin for these companies. Throwing light on this himself, Mukherjee said that in March 2002, when the international crude oil price was 23 dollars per barrel, the diesel price was 24 dollars per barrel. Today when the crude oil price is 49 dollars, the diesel price is 61 dollars. “When previously one dollar per barrel was the refining margin, how come it is 12 dollars per barrel. What are the reasons for such super margin? Is it manipulated? All of a sudden the refining price has gone up so high in spite of the high technology. The government should come out with a response”, he said.

The exporters of petroleum products in the private sector get a duty drawback, a concession to the tune of Rs 1,200 crore or so. Why is it not possible to stop this duty concession, especially when the global price is so high? The CPI(M) MP demanded immediate withdrawal of this concession. Dealing with Price Stabilisation Fund he said the cess being collected from the ONGC and the Oil India at the rate of Rs 800 per tonne is not being utilised for the development of oil sector. And this is happening from 1974 onwards from when this money is being collected for the development of the oil sector. He pointed out the standing committee recommendation that this cess should not go the Consolidated Fund of India; it should be used either as Price Stabilisation Fund or it should be used to neutralise the subsidy, to share part of the subsidy.  Mukherjee concluded his speech with the demand that the Rs 5,400 crore which is being collected through the cess from the ONGC and Oil India should be utilised either for sharing subsidy or for the Price Stabilisation Fund. 

DISCUSSION ON PM’s VISIT TO USA

Discussions took place in both the Houses of parliament on the statement made by the prime minister regarding his recent official visit to the USA. The CPI(M) leader in Rajya Sabha, Nilotpal Basu and CPI(M) leader in Lok Sabha, Rupchand Pal in their speeches gave clear-cut views on this subject  (see page 3 of this issue for excerpts of both the speeches).

BIHAR BUDGET

Lok Sabha held discussion on the budget of Bihar, which is presently under president rule. Participating in the debate, CPI(M) member, Mehboob Zahedi demanded higher allocation for agriculture in the state as farmers and rural people are facing severe crisis. In Bihar drought and floods are two major causes for havoc in the state. The three or four rivers emanating from Nepal cause floods in the state every year. Zahedi said although a committee was constituted by India and Nepal to suggest ways to check these floods, till date the House has not been informed as to what discussions were held and their outcome. While questioning why measures are not being taken to see that the water flooding the state is diverted to drought-prone areas, Zahedi demanded that money must be allocated for the repair of dams and lakes in Bihar. Ravaged by both drought and floods, the farmers of Bihar are also suffering due to lack of remunerative prices, lack of electricity. He said sugar mills in the state are lying closed affecting the farmers and labourers adversely. The condition of roads in the state is worse. Zahedi concluded his speech asking everybody to seriously ponder why there is large-scale migration from Bihar to other states and even outside the country.

BHEL DIVESTMENT

Lok Sabha held a discussion on a Calling Attention Motion moved by the CPI leader, Gurudas Dasgupta regarding government’s move to disinvest government equity share of profit-making public sector undertakings, particularly the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL). Participating in the debate the CPI(M) leader, Basudeb Acharia joined issue with the finance minister who had stated earlier that the sale of a small portion of government’s shareholding in profitable PSU is within the guidelines of the National Common Minimum Programme (CMP). He asserted that what the CMP has stated was that the profitable PSUs, particularly the navaratnas, would not be disinvested and they would not be privatised. He criticised the government for deciding in May to disinvest 10 per cent of its equity in BHEL. He pointed out that during the NDA regime, 33 per cent of government equity was disinvested.  Now, with this proposed 10 per cent disinvestment, the total government equity in BHEL disinvested would reach 43 per cent. “Today, it is 43 per cent. Tomorrow it can again be raised up to 49 per cent, and then gradually privatised by disinvesting just 2 per cent more”, said Acharia. There was no need for the government to disinvest such a profitable company as BHEL whose order book position is full for the next three years and worth of the orders is a whopping Rs 33,000 crore.

Acharia referred to government’s claims that the fund raised through the sale of the shares of public sector undertakings would be utilised for the social sector and also for the revival of sick PSUs. He then asked the finance minister to state specifically how much of the Rs 23,000 crore that the government has realised by disinvestment has been utilised for the revival of sick public sector undertakings?  Saying that not a single paisa has been utilised, he demanded the government to bring out a white paper.

NATIONAL SLUM POLICY

CPI(M) MP P Madhu made a special mention in Rajya Sabha requesting the central government to come forward with a national slum policy. He said this was necessary to ensure protection of slum dwellers and to facilitate the process of slum development and improvement on a sustainable basis.

Despite tremendous growth of urbanisation during the recent times and consequential rise in slums, the government was not prepared to bring in such a policy. Much worse, it was clinging to the policy of “slum clearance” with an inimical attitude towards slum-dwellers, driving them away from the urban habitats by demolishing hundreds of slums every year all over the country.

Pointing out that these urban slums contribute significantly to the economy and are being, of late, recognised as “engines of economic development” everywhere, Madhu asked the government to listen to UN, which has recognised this under ‘UN Habitat’ and adopted a number of resolutions on slum-development and on the rights of slum-dwellers.

            According to NSSO nation-wide survey, held during July-December, 2002, there were about 52,000 slums with 8 million households, representing a 33.33 per cent increase over the last decade.  Because of the extreme drought and poverty in various parts of the country, at least there would be  another rise of 10-15 per cent  since then. In this situation, it is incumbent on the government to immediately formulate a national slum policy.

(August 7, 2005)