September 2, 2013
Derek O`Brien speaks on Food Security Bill
Sir, what is an idea and what is a gimmick? Very simply put, an idea endures over time and changes people’s experiences. A gimmick certainly attracts a lot of attention but does not meet two issues. One, its commitment, and, two, most people who come up with gimmicks do so because they are under pressure. Sir, I can well understand that the UPA is the ‘Under Pressure Alliance’, and, therefore, we can understand why they are so much in search of gimmicks and not ideas. Sir, having said that, in principle, we agree with the concept of ‘Food for All’ and we also agree that when 12 per cent of a Budget is allotted for Defence, about 5 per cent is allotted for HRD and Midday Meal Scheme together, and, 2 per cent is allotted for Health, then, whatever the figure, 6 to 8 per cent is the figure they have now, will be part of this food security. In principle, we are in agreement with this figure.
Over the next few minutes, I want to stress on the two broad points which I want to make today. First is the mockery of federalism, and, the second is the execution of the plan. So, let me make three quick points on the mockery of federalism.
Clause 38 of this Bill basically says that for all issues of finance, the Centre will give the States the directions and the States will have to comply with whatever directions the Centre gives. This makes the mockery of federalism and let me give you three examples. The Congress-led UPA Government is making a lot of noise about VAT, VAT, VAT; how a VAT is implemented or one per cent of GDP will be improved. The story is that there is a CST, that is, the Central Sales Tax, which the States would collect and which is 4 per cent. In their enthusiasm to introduce VAT, the States were told to bring it down from 4 per cent to 2 per cent. The Centre dictated the same. Then, they said that they would reimburse the States but, Sir, in reality, this did not happen. I am using this example to show you how my State West Bengal has not got Rs. 650 crore. A promise was made for CST and it was not done. The point here, Sir, is that this is the danger of clause 38, and, that is why, we have moved an amendment to clause 38, and, I would appeal to all the Parties, who have more than 90 per cent of their seats from one States, to look at this clause very, very carefully. Let me give you second example. When a Central Scheme starts, for example, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, NRHM, they start with a particular percentage. Let me give you two examples; I can give you eight-ten examples but I am giving only two because of paucity of time. Sir, ten years ago, the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan started with a sharing arrangement of 85:15, that is, 85 per cent share of the Centre and 15 per cent share of the State. Now, in the same programme, the share of the Centre has come down to 65 per cent from 85 per cent, and, the State’s share has gone up from 15 per cent to 35 per cent.
If you take the NRHM, again, it started off as 85-15 and now it is already down to 75-25. Sir, this kind of law will have an impact on how the States manage their funds, especially debt-stressed States like the State I come from and a few others like Kerala and Punjab where we will not be able to prioritise our own programmes. Sir, the second point on this mockery of federalism is, if you look at section 23 – and here we were very tempted to move an amendment also, but in the nature of consensus, we thought, ‘no we won’t’ – the suggestion made is that when the Centre cannot supply the grains to the State from the Central pool, the State has to buy the grains on their own. Now, here is the problem. And regarding reimbursement, let us say if the State buys at ‘x’ price, the reimbursement may be below ‘x’. So, the State, in fact, will be losing money. Why? Because the Central pool could not supply them the grains. Third, Sir, quickly on setting up of infrastructure, whether you take the redressal mechanism, whether you take the State Food Commission, whether you take storage, transport, distribution, on all these points, it is not very clear as to how much of the burden the State has to bear. So, over all, my friends in the UPA – actually I should say my old friends in the UPA – have either not read the Sarkaria Commission or Punchhi Commission Reports, or, they have read it and they have selected amnesia. Those are the few points, Sir, we made on federalism.
Sir, now quickly some points on the execution. Mayawatijiactually shared the point which I again want to re-emphasise. You look at the PDS, you look at AAY, BPL and APL, then you study these numbers. It is an extremely relevant question because what is really happening is 60 per cent of those BPL houses covered under PDS will get less. So, if you look at AAY, BPL and APL, if you put them together on the existing PDS, 40 per cent, I agree, will be beneficiaries, 14 per cent will be equal and the rest of it, which is about another 40-45 per cent, will actually be getting less than what they are getting now.
Sir, I want to come to the other issue. Is this going to solve our problem, which is a shameful problem for our country, of malnutrition and stunted children? Almost one out of two children born in the world is from India. In the case of malnutrition and stunted children, we are number one. Sir, here again, there is so much emphasis on cereal and cereal is not the solution for two problems. Cereal, without going into the details as everybody would know, will not be the perfect balanced diet, and the second thing is you are encouraging farmers to do more cereal production, and be it oil or be it pulses, will continue to do our imports for them. Sir, that is a very serious issue because nutrients should not be mixed up with the world ‘calorie’. So, Sir, we have these two choices – one, we go for the mockery of federalism and two is on the execution. On the execution, we do believe that with proper guidance, with systems in place, there is some hope. I would appeal to the Congress-led UPA to please delete section 38. If you could take that out of this Bill, we will forgive you for the over-enthusiasm and the gimmickry of trying to push this through. Take out section 38 and we will support your Bill.
Thank you, Sir.
