People's Democracy(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) |
Vol. XXXVI
No. 50 December 16, 2012 |
THE
WEEK IN PARLIAMENT
CPI(M)
Parliamentary Office
BOTH
the houses were adjourned on the first
day of the week after paying homage to Shri Inder Kumar
Gujral, a former prime
minister of
In
Rajya Sabha, there were discussions on
the government’s decision to allow foreign direct investment
in multi-brand retail
trade and on the notification issued by the government under
the Foreign
Exchange Management Act 1999. A slightly edited text of the
intervention by Sitaram
Yechury in the discussion on FDI is being reproduced
elsewhere in this issue.
Basudeb
Acharia spoke on the same issue in
Lok Sabha. See the text of his intervention elsewhere in
this issue.
In
his maiden speech in Rajya Sabha, CPI(M)
member C P Narayanan supported the motion regarding FDI in
multi-brand retail,
saying that, like other so-called reforms introduced by this
government in the
past, this one is also going to benefit only a very small
section of the
population. There was a general agreement among various
political parties that
the retail trade should not be opened for foreign capital,
but the government
is opening this sector at the behest of certain powers. To
wipe out or reduce deficits,
it is not necessary to invite foreign direct investment. The
member also said the
foreign companies would not be bound to do local purchases
because the BIPA and
GATT, two of the agreements
For
the government of the United
Progressive Alliance, the tribulation was over after two
days of discussion in
the two houses, as the government won in the voting in Lok
Sabha and Rajya
Sabha separately, on the issue of FDI in multi-brand retail
trade. The
government received generous help once again from the
Bahujan Samaj Party that voted
against the motion and from the Samajwadi Party that staged
a walkout.
In
Lok Sabha, speaking on the Enforcement
of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment)
Bill 2011, A
Sampath urged the minister to consider his point that this
bill needed a
detailed study by the standing committee of parliament. He
said one’s dispossession
from a dwelling house, an immovable property, as per the
existing act, has led
to suicide in certain instances. It is an unpardonable sin.
The procedure
followed in existing act is that normally four notices are
published in various
newspapers. But all these notices cost around one lakh
rupees, including the cost
of advertisements charged by the newspapers, and this also
is credited to the concerned
party’s account. Thus, the affected person is taken out of
the frying pan and
thrown into the burning fire. There have been reports in
various newspapers
about the role of the NABARD in some such cases. The prime
purpose for which
the NABARD was constituted was to refinance the cooperative
movement and state
governments and also to undertake certain flagship
programmes of the government
of
The
member also said it is not fair for parliament
to handcuff the judiciary. The banks’ argument is that it is
some immovable
property that serves as a collateral for a bank loan amount
but agricultural
properties are exempted from the purview of the act, and
hence inordinate delay
is caused in realising the amounts due to banks as the
revenue authorities are to
be involved for taking physical possession over the secured
assets. The member
also said there is only one bench of the tribunal for Kerala
and it is
necessary to have another bench for Kerala and