State Govt taking measures to end child labour in districts

Posted on October 20, 2019 | by aitc | Leave a Comment

The Bangla Government has announced its plans for providing educational and vocational training to children who attend various residential schools in the State. The Labour Department has published a notification for converting one school in each district into a residential school.

Residential schools have already been made operational in the districts of Uttar Dinajpur, Nadia, North 24-Parganas, South 24-Parganas, Bankura and Paschim Medinipur. Many other districts are in the process of opening residential schools to eliminate child labour.

The proposed budgetary allotment made by the Labour Department for the operation of such schools is Rs 53 lakh for the financial year 2019-20. This is much higher than the previous financial year’s budget for the same purpose, which was Rs 35.49 lakh.

The Labour Department is in the process of regulating the working conditions of adolescents with respect to the type of work in order to prohibit children below 14 years from working in any hazardous job and maintain surveillance on the deployment of child labourers in hazardous industries. This is according to the provisions of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 2016.

Source: Millennium Post

Saugata Roy speaks in Lok Sabha on The Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2016

Posted on March 14, 2017 | by admin2 | Leave a Comment

Full Transcript

Sir, I rise to speak on the Enemy Property Act 1968 and Public Premises Eviction Of Unauthorised Act 1971.

I give the BJP credit for creating an All-India record in the sense that this is the fifth Ordinance on this issue since 2016. From 1952 till date there has been no Law on which there has been five Ordinances, one after the other. If this is not an example of Ordinance Raj, I do not know what Ordinance Raj is. May be the Minister will give an explanation has to why as many as five Ordinances were necessary.

Sir, basically I have nothing against the contention of the Bill which we will discuss later. But, it has a strange history. This Bill was debated in this House in March and I mentioned then that this Bill is actually to take care of the properties of one particular enemy. Who is that person? That is Raja Of Mahmudabad. He was one of the big landlords of UP. He was a friend of Jinnah and he went to Pakistan after Partition. In 1968, after the Ordinance was passed, his property – much of which is in the city of Lucknow – became enemy property.

Enemy property was there in all states; in our state West Bengal maximum number of enemy property was there. What happened is that the custodian of enemy property was appointed, he took all the property under possession and started disposing off. He invited, in turn, applications from people who had lost their land or property in East Pakistan so that they would be given compensation – not full compensation but 25 % ex-gratia compensation.

A strange case happened in the case of Raja of Mahmudabad. His son came to India and became a citizen of India; then he went to the Supreme Court and claimed all those properties which were declared enemy properties; he even became MLA twice.

He claimed that the properties that belonged to his father should come to him. Supreme Court gave a judgement saying that the property should be returned since the son of the Raja of Mahmudabad was indeed an Indian citizen. Now, if that would happen property worth thousands of crores would pass to the hands of the son of Raja of Mahmudabad in the main area in Lucknow: Hazratganj, where most of the shops are situated. If he started evicting the tenants all the big shops there would be teared down and then there would be tremendous civil turmoil in Lucknow. That is why this Bill was brought.

In March we had said that we had no objection to this Bill; we had at that time said that since this Bill has certain legal implications it should be referred to a Standing Committee. Madam, you in your wisdom, and the government in their wisdom, decided not to do so and the Bill went to Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha formed a Select Committee to go into the Bill. We – the Lok Sabha members who are directly elected – were deprived of the chance to scrutinize the bill and give our inputs on the Bill.

The Select Committee in Rajya Sabha went into the Bill. They made certain amendments and that’s how this new Bill came has now come to Lok Sabha. There are certain important changes. Earlier, it was said that as far as this Bill is concerned, there would be no jurisdiction of civil courts. Now that is remaining but what the government has added after suggestions from Rajya Sabha is that they have said that now there will be recourse in High Courts. Within 60 days, one can apply to the High Court and if within 60 days they cannot apply, then another 60 days is allowed with the permission of the High Court. Now this is reasonable. I think this is something which was raised earlier and this giving of opportunity to go to the High Court – as they say, “any person agreed by an order of the Central Government under Section 18 within a period of 60 days from the date of communication or receipt of the order may make an appeal to the High Court on any question of fact or law arising out of such order.” This is comprehensive. After this the Bill has become much better, and so we have no difficulty in passing the law.

I again say – initially in March also I had said – that we are totally in agreement with the object of the Bill: to see that the descendant or inheritor of any person became an enemy and whose property became an enemy property does not inherit that property. With special reference to the property of the Raja of Mahmudabad, whose property is in Lucknow, Muzaffarnagar and other places. So with these words, I support the Bill.

However, the government should not have taken the Ordinance route. They should not have created a ‘world record’ by bringing five Ordinances. They should have tried to find a solution by which the House can pass a law without taking a recourse to Ordinances.

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks in Rajya Sabha on The Enemy (Amendment & Validation) Bill, 2016

Posted on March 10, 2017 | by admin2 | Leave a Comment

Full Transcript

Sir, so far I understand, this Bill has been introduced by the Government following the Supreme Court judgement in a particular case that the Hon’ble Leader of the House has mentioned. We must not consider this Bill in the ambit of one case; it has wider ramifications. The 1968 Act allowed for vesting of enemy properties with the custodian after the war with China and Pakistan, as rightly pointed out by the Hon’ble Leader of the House. After the 1965 war, there were the Defence of India Act provisions, which are all right.

This Bill amends the Act to clarify that even in the following cases, these properties will continue to be vested with the custodian:

The enemy’s death, which is all right,

If the legal heir is an Indian, on which we have certain objections, because legally as an Indian citizen, this Bill is depriving property to Indian citizens. If there is no title after 1965, then nothing is inherited by the Indian citizen; then there is no question of putting this clause in this definition.

On the one hand, the Government is saying that after 1965 there is no title to the property by the enemy and now the Bill seeks to amend that if the legal heir is an Indian, then also he is not entitled to the title of the property. If there is no title, then how does this come? So this is contradictory, in my point of view, and so this should be removed.

Also, Sir, if the enemy changes his nationality to that of another country. Now the Hon’ble Leader of the House has mentioned about going from Pakistan to London, which is all right in that particular case. The question is, Sir, here are so many things which are not in this Bill. When Punjab and Bengal were partitioned – it was not the partition of India, it was the partition of a few districts of Bengal and Punjab only – and when millions of evacuees came from other parts of Bengal and Punjab, that is, East Pakistan and West Punjab, how much compensation has been given by the Government of India to the evacuees? Nothing has been said in this Bill about that – because the enabling provision has been made, that after the selling of the property, the custodian can sell out the property, can dispose of the property, and after the disposal where would the proceeds from the sale go, how it will be utilized, nothing has been said in the Bill. Whether, out of the sale proceeds, the evacuees or their descendants can get compensation or not; nothing has been stated.

After the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971, the evacuees of erstwhile East Pakistan got only ex gratia, not compensation, from the Government of India to the extent of 25 per cent of their total claims; therefore, 75 per cent of their total claims is still remaining.

This Bill has been brought on a piecemeal manner just to thwart the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a particular case. That is why I have objections on principle on this Bill, because if the Government is serious to take into consideration all aspects related to enemy properties then, in my view, those things should also be addressed in a proper manner, and for which a comprehensive Bill is required to be brought by the Government.

Lastly, the way the Bill has been introduced today – I cannot blame the Chair, because it is in the List of Business – I have already stated and Mr Jairam Ramesh and other Hon’ble Members have also stated the practical difficulties. This is a serious Bill which could not be discussed in a proper manner. We can understand the difficulties on the part of the Government because of the March 14 deadline. So on March 14 itself we could have discussed and passed this Bill after a threadbare discussion.

This is why, in protest against the indifferent attitude of the Government, to not to respond to the request made by the Opposition, I walk out, Sir.

Kalyan Banerjee speaks on The Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Bill, 2016

Posted on March 10, 2017 | by admin2 | Leave a Comment

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Thank you Madam for allowing me to speak on The Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Bill, 2016. Firstly, I must point out that I respectfully disagree with the statements made by the Hon’ble Minister. The Minister while making the statement said the Bill is also covering the environmental issues. I am sorry, Sir. Under clause 4 this is not the scope. You have also referred to that in case of leakage of oil etc. This will come within the purview of this. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the statement made by him in respect of two issues.

This Act was necessary for long rather I say it is unfortunate that although Supreme Court in 1992 directed the Central Government to come up with a law which will fulfill the need of the day, when 151 reports of the Law Commission were existing. But unfortunately from 1992 to 2016, no one paid any heed to the circumstances. Today it is needed and therefore I am not opposing, as far as the substance of the Bill is concerned.

Madam, I will just mention two or three things. The claim which is required to be decided by the High Court by reason of this enactment of the Act, itself has been codified under Clause 4. The jurisdictions have been said there.

Clause 2, Sub Clause K, states “territorial water shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the ‘Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976’. You have incorporated a provision and that is a vague provision. Which High Court has the jurisdiction on the sea itself?

I have an experience being a Lawyer; we had a dispute with the Odisha Government in respect of territorial water. However, both the Hon CMs discussed and resolved the problem and it is now working very good. I will point out to the Honourable Minister, kindly clarify this, this Bill is bringing another area where more interpretation is required to be done by the Court. You have to clarify and clear it.

Clause 17 Sub Clause 2, “shall not withstand the appeal of admiralty proceedings pending in the High Court immediately before the commencement of the Act, shall continue to be adjudicated by such High Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

What does it mean? Firstly, “shall continue to be adjudicated by such High Court” – if you have said it is alright. The moment you are saying with accordance of the provisions of the Act, there is no clarity in this section. Will Kolkata will go to Odisha, or any other places will go to another? If a proceeding is pending in the High Court, will it continue in the High Court? Then the language of the statute needs to be made clear. You are creating a confusion by saying that before the commencement of the Act, it will continue to be adjudicated by such High Court in accordance with the providence of this Act.

Now I want to make a point to the nation its self. A national problem has emerged. You are giving the jurisdiction to the High Court to decide but do you know how many vacancies are there in the High Courts? How will they take the load? Not a single High Court is in a position to function.

Why you are not fulfilling the vacancies? The National Judicial Appointments Bill was passed here. Ultimately the Supreme Court declared it ultra vires; we have to accept this. We cannot have any ego on that. Neither the legislature nor the executive can have any ego with the judiciary. This has to be sorted out. If there is an ego with the judiciary regarding the filling of the vacancies kindly fill it up.

My suggestion to you (also it is a very difficult job for you) is that the territorial water jurisdiction has to be identified. Now it is not much difficult because of the new mechanisms like satellite etc.

You have to identify the part about water belonging to West Bengal and Odisha. If you identify that part you will find the question regarding the jurisdiction by the court that would be lesser and easier job. In the future if you will try to do it will be great helpful. This is my suggestion. With this I give you thanks. This Bill has been long pending since 1992. Let it be passed. There is no difficulty. With this I conclude.

Thank you.

Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar speaks on Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016

Posted on March 9, 2017 | by admin2 | Leave a Comment

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Thank you, Chairman Sir. I stand here on behalf of All India Trinamool Congress and I would like to congratulate the Hon’ble Labour Minister for having given such a wonderful thought for ladies. Kal hi hum Antarjatik Mahila Divas manaye hain aur aaj hum charcha kar rahe hain mahila ke liye, aadhi abadi ke liye. Kehte hain ‘Der aaye, durast aaye’. After 55 years, we are bringing the amendment. But after all we are bringing in the amendment, that is one thing to rejoice and I congratulate you, Sir. We support this Bill.

But as I will slowly elaborate, I completely support Supriya Sule ji, that we need other ministries on board, and I am happy that our Hon’ble Minister for Women and Child Welfare is here. We should have a joint supervisory body, which should have members from, along with the Labour Ministry, the Women and Child Ministry and the Health Ministry, because this subject entails all of them – this is not something only to be dealt with by the Labour Ministry alone.

Childbirth is such a beautiful experience and all of us women have gone through the experience. At the moment, whatever the amendments that have been brought, there has been definitely much improvement on what we had – 26 weeks is good enough because the World Health Organisation gives us a suggestion for 24 weeks of breastfeeding which enhances the resistance of the child towards respiratory tract diseases and diarrhoeal diseases, and therefore brings down the mortality thereof.

We have the example of the Bengal Government, the second time elected government led by the CM Mamata Banerjee. she started this thing of ‘Mother & Child Hub’ in which from the last trimester, the pregnant women are been brought and have been kept there. They have been given nutritious diet and specialised doctors are looking after them. So, the reports of the stories that we read in the past – that while reaching the hospital the women has given birth on the road or died on the road – does not happen. For that we have improved statistics as far as infant mortality and maternal mortality is concerned in the State.

Also in the country we are doing well but we should do much better; we want to go and touch the Millennium Development Goal 5 which we as a country have not yet touched so we should also give our thought to this. How do we point out as to which of the women need care? If we can universalise institutional delivery then only we can get to know which of the women need more care because we cannot have same sort of leave benefits for all women.

Certain women suffer from medical diseases like hypertension; then they have pre-eclamptic toxaemia. They may have diabetes while some might have cancer, some might have APLA syndrome, polycystic ovaries, some might have other diseases like systemic lupus erythematosus, in which cases the mothers needs more care. In those cases 26 weeks is not enough. That is why I said that the Health Ministry should also be taken on board.

Today we have many more girls coming into our services. There are girls who are patrolling our borders ,we have women working in the BSF, we have women working in the SSB, we have women in the ITBP, we have women in the CISF, in the defence forces and in the CRPF. They should be given little more benefits because their life is more active than a normal woman who is at home. Right after childbirth they should not be sent to the remote areas. We must universalise antenatal care.

Hoardings, billboards and flexes must be put up in rural areas in the regional language and the vernacular so the women going to the market or on the road can read what is written there. Tetanus toxoid shots are required to prevent tetanus or antenatal check up, folic acid and RN tablets are required. So, these also should be included and monitored so that the women who are in the villages, who are in the rural areas they know exactly what to do.

In spite of this being a very nice Amendment Bill, I would like to demand and draw the attention of the Hon. Minister that universal help for all BPL family women should be brought. Unorganised sector & organised sector should be brought under the purview of this Bill; even domestic helps, agriculture workers, site workers, mine workers and the farm hands – everybody should be included because it is a pain of all ladies throughout the pregnancy and they should be taken care of.

It is of great pleasure that you have put in the issue of commissioning mothers here but they would require a little more benefit that what you have mentioned for them and also I would draw your attention to the fact these days girls are studying more, they are getting married at a later age and when they try for pregnancy then most times they are unable to conceive because of their raised age they have to take help of donors (after consultation and informed consent). These girls are doing social work by donating their eggs so they should also be given some kind of benefit.

The surrogate mother should be given some kind of benefit because she is the one who is holding the baby for so many months (when it is not done commercially it is done only through good will). I have delivered babies where the mother of the patient has delivered, where the sister-in-law of the patient has delivered. So we must also take them into cognizance when we are making this Bill.

And, as has been done in Bengal, I would also like to reiterate that we want paternity leave for the menfolk because having a child is a joint effort, it is a joint venture of the mother and the father. The Hon’ble Supreme court has also given all rights to single mothers, so single mothers should also be specially included for the benefits and mentions.

Thank you, Sir.

Ratna De Nag speaks on Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016

Posted on March 9, 2017 | by admin2 | Leave a Comment

FULL TRANSCRIPT

At the very outset, I am really glad to say that this Bill recommends to extend maternity leave to 26 weeks from the present 12 weeks. As the House is aware that the Bill seeks to increase the maternity leave from twelve weeks to 26 weeks for two surviving children and the said will be applicable to all establishment employing 10 or more people.

The Bill also provides twelve weeks leave for commissioning and adopting mothers and makes it mandatory to provide creche facility in establishments where the number of workers is 50 and above. At present, the Maternity Benefit Act does not provide a maternity leave for commissioning and adopting mothers. Hence, I have apprehension because no establishment will follow this provision of the law. Hence, I would suggest that the monitoring mechanism should be strictly adhered to. The provisions of the Act should be put in place in organised and unorganised sector.

The legislation must include decentralised grievance redressal system for non implementation of the Act. But women in unorganized sector, including government front-end workers – like Asha workers, who provided maternal healthcare linkage to all women, mid-day meal workers, Anganwadi worker and helpers, women working under MGNREGA – do not get any wage compensation during pregnancy and childhood.

The object of maternity leave and benefit is to protect the dignity of motherhood for providing for full and healthy maintenance of a woman and child when she is not working. In today’s age more and more women are joining the workforce and in this scenario it is important to ensure that women who are striving for self-sufficiency do not have to compromise in a role as a caregiver to her child.

Studies have shown that longer maternity leaves are likely to produce health benefits. Expectant and nursing mothers require special protection to prevent harm to their own health and infant’s health. They need adequate time to give birth, to recover, to nurse their children at the same time they also require protection to ensure that they will not lost their job simply because of pregnancy at maternity leave. Such protection ensures a woman equal access to employment.

Sir, women are estimated to be only 30 % of all economically active individuals even though they account for 48% of the population Only 1% of women are employed in State and Central Government and 3% are registered in management and senior official positions.

Maternity benefits are crucial as malnutrition continues to be a huge hurdle. In India, almost 1 in every 3 children or an alarming 4.8 crore children are stunted. Without benefits it often becomes difficult for a single mother to provide adequate nutrition for her child. A mother also has to ensure that a child is fully immunised against all types of diseases. India is still long way off from securing 100% immunisation for all children. In fact, the first phase of National Family Health Survey, 2015-16, revealed that the highest percentage of fully immunised children are from Goa, Sikkim, Puducherry and Bengal.

India Gandhi Matritva Sahayog Yojana is conditional cash transfer scheme for improved health and nutrition of pregnant and lactating mothers. This scheme is being implemented in 52 districts for women above the age of 19 years for their first to birth, it is estimated that around 3 to 4 women get pregnant every year. If Rs 6000 is given to each of them then Rs 18000 crore is needed every year. However, in the current Budget only Rs 400 crore has been allocated in the scheme. This needs to be re-looked by the government.

Sir I would like to mention something about my State; what is Bengal doing for pregnant women? In the case of construction workers in unorganised sector, baby boy is given an amount of Rs 6000 and baby girl is given an amount of Rs 12000. If the women stay in hospital even after 3 days then around Rs 200 is given per day.

Earlier we lived in a joint family where when a newborn arrived , the whole family attended to the newborn. But now we have nuclear families where you have none to take care of the newborn. The mother and the father have to do everything in order to take of the newborn. Hence there is a need for certain facilities for the father also – that is paternity leave. In our state Bengal, our CM is giving paternity leave for 30 days.

In the Bill it is stated in other cases the existing period of 12 weeks maternity benefits shall continue; those women who are having more than 2 children will be given 12 weeks of maternity leave. Hence, I would like to suggest to the Hon. Minister to have a relook at this. How will the mother manage with the 12 weeks leave because she needs more time to bring the child to a certain stage before she joins work. Hope the Hon. Minister will respond to this. Let there be a clear method of extending 26 weeks of maternity leave as per the Bill.

Let there be a clear method of extending 26 weeks of maternity leave as per the Bill. When does the mother go on leave? When would the 26 weeks of maternity leave start? For example 2 months before delivery and 4 months after delivery would be ideal as per as I am concerned.

I would like to request the Hon. Minister to take care of the women in the unorganised sector where women work in a large number and in majority and that is the reason why women in the unorganised sectors are the worst sufferers. I hope the Hon. Minister will pay special emphasis on women workers in the unorganised sector.

I appreciate the thought the government has put behind the bill, we all need to work towards building a future where women hold an equal stake in every aspect of India’s social, political and economic life, for a child the most important person in their life is their mother, let us insure that we will build an India with every women is free to achieve her dreams and no child is deprived of the mother’s love.

2016 Winter Session of Parliament: Centre refuses Oppn’s just demands, leading to disruptions

Posted on December 17, 2016 | by aitc | Leave a Comment

All through the 2016 Winter Session of Parliament, the Opposition parties, including the Trinamool Congress, demanded discussion on demonetisation, the draconian decision that the Central Government had thrust on the people of the country.

However, the ruling dispensation repeatedly refused to heed this just demand from the Opposition parties, leading to constant disruptions.

The Trinamool Congress cornered the Centre over the issue of demonetisation in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha right from the opening week.

On the opening day, that is, November 16, Trinamool Congress parliamentarians from both houses of Parliament staged a demonstration outside the Parliament in New Delhi, opposing the move of demonetisation by the Centre and demanding its rollback.

On the third day too, that is, November 18, too, the party’s MPs from both the Houses assembled near the Gandhi statue outside Parliament to stage a dharna, highlighting the plight of the common people due to demonetisation.

Trinamool Congress was the first political party to give a notice of suspension in the Rajya Sabha.

On November 17, in the Rajya Sabha, Derek O’Brien demanded voting after discussion on the issue of demonetisation. He said, “We think that beyond the debate there should be a voting”.

On the same day, in the Lok Sabha, Sudip Bandyopadhyay moved an Adjournment Motion under Rule 56 on the issue. He said, “Let this decision be withdrawn temporarily to chalk out a final plan”.

On November 18, Sudip Bandyopadhyay once again demanded a discussion under Rule 56 to censure the Central Government on demonetisation.

The second week of the 2016 Winter Session of Parliament was quite eventful. On November 24, Derek O’Brien in the Rajya Sabha gave a scathing reply to the Centre’s decision on demonetisation, outlining the hardships that the people of the country have been facing for the last 15 days (since demonetisation).

A day earlier, Sudip Bandyopadhyay in the Lok Sabha, as the voice of the united Opposition, had demanded a discussion on the issue of demonetisation under Rule 56, which entails voting after the debate.

On November 23, the opposition parties represented in Parliament, including Trinamool Congress, had staged a joint protest against the Government’s decision on demonetisation at the statue of Gandhi Ji inside the Parliament complex.

On November 25, Derek O’Brien strongly criticised the attitude of the Centre towards those who oppose its views and policies: “I said this in the House yesterday. If we oppose the Government’s policy it does not mean we are in favour of corruption”. He also asked for the Prime Minister to come to the Rajya Sabha and apologise for his comments earlier in the morning. He said, “Does the Prime Minister think he alone is a saint and we are all devils? The Prime Minister must come to the House and apologise”.

On the same day, Sudip Bandyopadhyay also came down severely on the Prime Minister’s insult to those opposing the draconian decision of demonetisation through his comments earlier that day. As he said, “On a day when we are trying to find a solution as to how the House can function, the Prime Minister has made comments that have hurt the Opposition. We demand that the Prime Minister withdraws his comments and apologises for the comments he has made”.

The third week of the 2016 Winter Session of Parliament saw the major Opposition parties demanding discussions on demonetisation and the presence of the Prime Minister during those debates as well.

Two major incidents were brought to the notice of the Parliament by the Trinamool Congress.

On the last day of the week, December 2, there was a furore in both Houses of Parliament over the issue of the sudden deployment of the Army in 19 places in Bengal, without discussing with the State Government.

In the Rajya Sabha, Sukhendu Sekhar Roy gave a notice under Rule 267 (suspension of business) and raised the issue, which was supported by all Opposition parties.

During the discussion, Derek O’Brien, the Leader of the Party in the Rajya Sabha, raised a Point of Order regarding the placing of selective documents by the Minister regarding the role of the Army.

Sudip Bandyopadhyay, the Leader of the Party in the Lok Sabha, raised the same issue.

A day before, on December 1, Derek O’Brien had demanded an enquiry to be instituted by the Government on the issue of the flight carrying Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee being denied immediate permission to land at Kolkata Airport, despite the pilot reporting the plane being short on fuel.

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy in the Rajya Sabha had made an important intervention after the Minister’s reply on the issue of the flight snag.

Sudip Bandyopadhyay had taken up the same issue in the Lok Sabha.

Earlier, on November 28, Sudip Bandyopadhyay had demanded the adoption of Adjournment Motion to enable discussion on demonetisation.

The next day, November 29, saw Sudip Bandyopadhyay asking for the clubbing of the discussions on demonetisation and the amendments brought in the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016, since the latter is related to demonetisation.

On the same day, Saugata Roy in the Lok Sabha demanded a full-fledged discussion on the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016, strongly criticising the Government’s decision to pass the Bill in a hasty manner.

On November 30, Derek O’Brien, demanded the presence of the Prime Minister in the Rajya Sabha during the debate on demonetisation.

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy in the Rajya Sabha gave a Notice under Rule 267, asking the Chairman to enable the House to make obituary references for the army jawans killed in clashes with terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir and for the people who had died as a consequence of the implementation of demonetisation.

In the Lok Sabha, on November 30, Sudip Bandyopadhyay again pressed the Speaker to grant the Opposition’s demand for a discussion on demonetisation, followed by voting.

Later in the day, Derek O’Brien demanded the Prime Minister withdraws his remarks on the Opposition outside Parliament before the debate on demonetisation can begin.

In the Lok Sabha, Sudip Bandyopadhyay repeated his earlier demand of the discussion on demonetisation to be taken up, along with voting.

Trinamool Congress staged a series of protests at the Parliament complex all through the fourth week of the Winter Session to protest against demonetisation.

December 8 was celebrated as Black Day by Opposition parties, being the completion of one month since the decision of demonetisation was announced. Members of Parliament from Trinamool Congress as well as other parties in the Opposition staged a protest at Parliament.

On the first day of the fourth week, December 5, Trinamool Congress staged a protest against demonetisation and its ill-effects at the statue of Mahatma Gandhi inside the Parliament complex.

On Friday, December 9, another protest was staged by Trinamool Congress MPs outside Parliament, who displayed a banner carrying the full list of names of the 93 people who have died so far as a consequence of demonetisation, while waiting in queues outside banks and ATMs.

Inside Parliament, the first day of session during this week, that is, December 5, saw Sudip Bandyopadhyay asking the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to enable the initiation of the discussion on demonetisation as early as possible, asking why the Government is shirking from a discussion time and again.

On December 7, Sukhendu Sekhar Roy in the Rajya Sabha raised a Point of Order regarding a BJP leader from Bengal being caught with lakhs of cash and arms.

On December 8, he asked the Deputy Chairman inside the House that the Rajya Sabha be allowed to mourn the tragic deaths due to demonetisation.

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy raised the issue of mourning the deaths once again on December 9.

Through the week, Congress had given a Notice for discussion under Rule 184 and the Trinamool Congress under Rule 56, while some others wanted it to take place under Rule 193.

On December 9, even a No Rule discussion on demonetisation was agreed upon by the Opposition parties in the Lok Sabha, wherein discussion was to have taken place under no specific rules. The MPs of the treasury benches (ruling coalition), though, refused to relent, disrupting the House repeatedly, preventing the Opposition members from speaking. Ultimately the House had to be adjourned for the day.

The final week of Parliament also saw the Opposition parties, including Trinamool Congress, demand discussions on demonetisation. However, the treasury benches continuously tried to disrupt proceedings.

On December 14, 16 leading Opposition parties held a joint press conference in New Delhi. Sudip Bandyopadhyay of Trinamool Congress said that the “voice of Opposition is being gagged” in Parliament and that “what is happening is not just unfortunate but disgraceful”.

In the Rajya Sabha, on December 14, Nadimul Haque spoke on behalf of the party supporting the Right of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2014. A speech supporting the same Bill was given by Saugata Roy in the Lok Sabha on December 16.

On December 15, the Trinamool Members of Parliament held a protest against demonetisation outside Parliament.

On that same day, in the Lok Sabha, Sudip Bandyopadhyay even said that “a discussion could have been initiated, without any Rules”. However, the ruling party did not let it happen.

The 241st session of Parliament (Winter Session) ended on December 16.

একনজরে ২০১৬ সালের সংসদের শীতকালীন অধিবেশন: বিরোধীদের বৈধ দাবী মানল না সরকার

২০১৬র সংসদের পুরো শীতকালীন অধিবেশনে তৃণমূল সহ বিরোধী দলগুলি কেন্দ্রীয় সরকারের সারা দেশবাসীর ওপর চাপিয়ে দেওয়া নোটবাতিলের মর্মান্তিক সিদ্ধান্তের ওপর আলোচনার দাবি জানিয়ে গেল। সরকারের তরফ থেকে ক্রমাগত বাধা প্রদান করে আলোচনার থেকে তারা বিরত থাকল।

চলতি পার্লামেন্টের শীতকালীন অধিবেশনে লোকসভা ও রাজ্যসভা দু’জায়গাতেই কেন্দ্রীয় সরকারকে পুরো কোনঠাসা করল তৃণমূল কংগ্রেস। শীতকালীন অধিবেশনের প্রথম দিন মানে ১৬ই নভেম্বর পার্লামেন্টের সদস্যরা পার্লামেন্টের বাইরে বিক্ষোভ প্রদর্শন করেন এই নোট বাতিলের বিরুদ্ধে। তৃতীয় দিনেও একই ভাবে পার্লামেন্টের বাইরে তৃণমূল কংগ্রেসের পার্লামেন্টের সদস্যরা নোট বাতিলের ফলে সাধারণ মানুষের দুর্ভোগের প্রতিবাদে বিক্ষোভ প্রদর্শন করেন।

তৃণমূল কংগ্রেস প্রথম পার্টি যারা মুলতুবি প্রস্তাব আনেন রাজ্যসভায়। ১৭ই নভেম্বর রাজ্য সভায় ডেরেক ও ব্রায়েন আলোচনার পর ভোটের দাবি জানান। একই দিনে লোকসভায় সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় ৫৬ নম্বর নিয়ম অনুযায়ী মুলতুবি প্রস্তাব আনেন ও বলেন একটি সুপরিকল্পিত পরিকল্পনা গ্রহণ করে তারপর এই নোট বাতিল কার্যকর করা হোক। পরের দিনও লোকসভায় সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় একই দাবি তোলেন।

নানারকম ঘটনার মধ্যে দিয়ে কাটল পার্লামেন্টের শীতকালীন অধিবেশনের দ্বিতীয় সপ্তাহ। ২৪শে নভেম্বর রাজ্য সভায় ডেরেক ও ব্রায়েন উপযুক্ত জবাব দেন কেন্দ্রের এই দিশাহীন নোট বাতিলের তুঘলকি সিদ্ধান্তের ও তা কার্যকর করে বিগত ১৫ দিনের দেশের মানুষের কি পরিমান ভোগান্তি বাড়ানো হয়েছে, তার জবাব হিসেবে। তার আগের দিন সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় লোকসভায় সকল বিরোধী দলের পক্ষ থেকে ৫৬ নম্বর নিয়ম মেনে নোট বাতিলের ওপর আলোচনা ও তার পর ভোটাভুটির দাবি তোলেন। ২৩শে নভেম্বর তৃণমূল কংগ্রেস সহ বিরোধী দলগুলি সংসদের সামনে গান্ধী মূর্তির তলায় একসঙ্গে বিক্ষোভ প্রদর্শন করেন কেন্দ্রের নোট বাতিলের তুঘলকি নীতির প্রতিবাদে।

যে সকল দল সরকার ও তার এই কার্যকলাপের বিরোধিতা করছে, তাদের প্রতি সরকারের আচরণের তীব্র সমালোচনা করেন ডেরেক ও ব্রায়েন। ২৫শে নভেম্বর, তিনি বলেন, “আমি গতকাল কক্ষে বলেছি, আমরা যদি সরকারের নীতির সমালোচনা করি, তার মানে এই না যে আমরা কালো টাকার পক্ষে”, তিনি প্রধানমন্ত্রীকে রাজ্যসভায় আসার ও সেদিন সকালে বিরোধীদের ব্যাপারে এরকম কটূক্তি করার জন্য ক্ষমা চাওয়ার দাবি জানান। তিনি বলেন, “প্রধানমন্ত্রী কি ভাবেন যে সব বিরোধীরা চোর আর উনি একা সাধুপুরুষ? প্রধানমন্ত্রী এই সভায় আসুন ও বিরোধীদের কাছে ক্ষমা চান।”

ওই দিনই তার কিছুক্ষন আগে সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় লোকসভায় তীব্র প্রতিবাদ জানান প্রধান মন্ত্রীর বিরোধীদের ব্যাপারে কটূক্তির বিরোধিতা করে। তিনি বলেন , “যে সময় আমরা একটি উপায় খুঁজছি কি করে সভা চালানো যায়, সেসময় প্রধানমন্ত্রীর এরকম একটি উক্তি বিরোধী দলগুলিকে খুব বেদনা দিয়েছে। আমরা দাবি জানাই প্রধানমন্ত্রী তাঁর বক্তব্য ফিরিয়ে নিন ও বিরোধীদের থেকে ক্ষমা চান।”

২০১৬ সালের সংসদের শীতকালীন অধিবেশনের তৃতীয় সপ্তাহেও বিরোধীরা নোটবাতিল নিয়ে আলোচনার দাবিতে ও প্রধানমন্ত্রীর উপস্থিতিতে তর্ক করার দাবীতে সংসদ সরব রাখল।

দুটি বড় দুর্ঘটনা সংসদের নজরে আনল তৃণমূল কংগ্রেস। দোসরা ডিসেম্বর তৃতীয় সপ্তাহের অন্তিম দিনে পশ্চিমবঙ্গ সরকারের সঙ্গে কোনওরকম আলোচনা না করে রাজ্যের ১৯টি স্থানে সেনাবাহিনী মোতায়েন করার জন্য সংসদের উভয় কক্ষই উত্তাল রাখেন বিরধিরা। ২৬৭ নম্বর নিয়ম অনুযায়ী রাজ্যসভায় নোটিশ দেন রাজ্যসভার সাংসদ সুখেন্দু শেখর রায়, যা সকল বিরোধীদল সমর্থন করেন। আলোচনা চলাকালীন রাজ্যসভায় তৃণমুলের দলনেতা ডেরেক ও ব্রায়েন পয়েন্ট অফ অর্ডার ঘোষণা করেন যেখানে তিনি উল্লেখ করেন, সেনা মোতায়েন নিয়ে কেন্দ্রীয় মন্ত্রী কিছু বাছাই করা নথি পেশ করেছেন সংসদে।
লোকসভার দলনেতা সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়ও একই ব্যাপারে কথা তোলেন। তার আগের দিন ডেরেক ও ব্রায়েন দাবি তোলেন মাননীয়া মুখ্যমন্ত্রী মমতা বান্দ্যপাধ্যায়ের বিমানচালক জ্বালানি কম থাকার কারনে বারবার বিমানবন্দরকে অনুরধ করা সত্তেও কেন তার বিমানকে নামতে দেওয়া হয়নি, সেই ব্যাপারে সরকার যাতে অনুসন্ধান করেন। কেন্দ্রীয় মন্ত্রী এই ব্যাপারে উত্তর দেওয়ার পর সুখেন্দু শেখর রায় একটি খুব মুল্যবান কথা বলেন।লোকসভায় সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়ও একই ব্যাপারে কথা তোলেন।

২৮শে নভেম্বর সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় মুলতুবি প্রস্তাব আনেন ও নোটবাতিলের ব্যাপারে আলোচনার দাবি জানান। তার পরের দিন, ২৯শে নভেম্বর সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় নোট বাতিল ও আয়করের দ্বিতীয় সংশোধনী আইনের ব্যাপারে আলোচনার দাবি করেন কারন ওই দুটি বিষয় একে অপরের সঙ্গে জড়িত। ওইদিনেই লোকসভায় সৌগত রায় হঠকারী ভাবে সংসধনি আইন পাস করানোর তিব্র নিন্দা করেন ও বিস্তারিত আলোচনার দাবি জানান।

৩০শে নভেম্বর ডেরেক ও ব্রায়েন প্রধানমন্ত্রীর উপস্থিতিতে নোটবাতিলের অপর তর্কের দাবি তোলেন। ২৬৭ নম্বর নিয়ম মেনে রাজ্য সভায় সুখেন্দু শেখর রায়, রাজ্যসভার চেয়ারম্যানকে অনুরোধ করেন কাশ্মিরে নিহত সেনাদের সঙ্গে সঙ্গে নোটবাতিলের ফলে যারা মারা গেছেন তাদেরকেও শ্রদ্ধা জানাতে। ওইদিন লোকসভায় সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় আবারও অধ্যক্ষকে দাবি জানান, নোটবাতিলের ওপর আলোচনা ও তারপর ভোটের। ওইদিনই ডেরেক ও ব্রায়েন দাবি করেন নোট বাতিলের ওপর আলোচনা শুরু করার আগে প্রধানমন্ত্রীকে ক্ষমা চাইতে হবে সংসদের বাইরে করা বিরোধীদের ব্যাপারে তাঁর কতুক্তি নিয়ে। লোকসভায় সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় সেই একই দাবি তোলেন, নোটবাতিলের ওপর আলোচনা ও তারপর ভোটের।

সংসদের শীতকালীন অধিবেশনের চতুর্থ সপ্তাহে নোটবাতিলের বিরুদ্ধে সংসদ চত্বরে একগুচ্ছ ধর্না কর্মসূচীতে অংশগ্রহণ করল তৃণমূল কংগ্রেস।

নোটবাতিল ঘোষণার একমাস পুরন হয় ডিসেম্বরের ৮ তারিখ, ওইদিন সমস্ত বিরোধী দলগুলি মিলে কালা দিবস পালন করে। সংসদ চত্বরে তৃণমূল সহ অন্যান্য বিরোধী দলগুলি বিক্ষোভ দেখান। চতুর্থ সপ্তাহের প্রথম দিন অর্থাৎ ডিসেম্বরের ৫ তারিখ গান্ধী মূর্তির পাদদেশে তৃণমূল এই নোটবাতিল ও তাঁর খারাপ প্রভাবের বিরুদ্ধে ধর্না দেয়।

ডিসেম্বরের ৯ তারিখ আরেকটি বিক্ষোভ প্রদর্শন করেন তৃণমূল সাংসদদরা সংসদের বাইরে যেখানে তাঁরা একটি প্রতিলিপি প্রদর্শন করেন যেখানে ওই ৯৩ জন ব্যাক্তির নাম রয়েছে যারা এই নোটবাতিল ঘোষণার ফলে ব্যাঙ্ক ও এটিএমের লাইনে দাড়িয়ে জীবন দিয়েছেন। ডিসেম্বরের ৫ তারিখ লোকসভায় সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় অধ্যক্ষর কাছে নোটবাতিলের ওপর দ্রুত আলোচনার দাবি জানান। সঙ্গে এও জানতে চান শাসক দল কেন এই আলোচনা থেকে পিছিয়ে যাচ্ছে?

ডিসেম্বরের ৭ তারিখ রাজ্যসভায় সুখেন্দু শেখর রায় বিজেপি নেতার বহু লক্ষ টাকা নিয়ে ধরা পড়ার ব্যাপারে পয়েন্ট অফ অর্ডার আনেন। ডিসেম্বরের ৮ তারিখ তিনি রাজ্য সভায় দাবি জানান এই নোটবাতিলের ফলে যেসকল মানুষ প্রান দিয়েছেন তাদের উদ্দেশ্যে রাজ্যসভায় শোক প্রকাশ করা হোক। ডিসেম্বরের ৯ তারিখেও তিনি রাজ্যসভায় একই দাবি রাখেন। পুরো সপ্তাহ ধরে কংগ্রেস নোটিশ দেন ১৮৪ নম্বর নিয়মে আলোচনা করার ও তৃণমূল ৫৬ নম্বর নিয়মে ও অন্যান্য দলগুলি ১৯৩ ধারায় নোটিশ দেন আলোচনার জন্য।

ডিসেম্বরের ৯ তারিখে কোনও নিয়ম না মেনেই বিরোধীরা আলোচনার জন্য রাজি হন। সরকার পক্ষের সাংসদরা এর বিরোধিতা করেন ও বারংবার সভা উত্তাল করে তোলেন ও বিরোধীদের কথা বলতে বাধা দেন। শেষ অবধি ওইদিনের মত কক্ষ মুলতুবি হয়ে যায়।

সংসদের শীতকালীন অধিবেশনের শেষ সপ্তাহেও নোটবাতিল নিয়ে আলোচনা হল না। বিরোধী দলগুলি আলোচনার দাবি জানালেও সরকার পক্ষ সমানে বাধা দিয়ে আলোচনা হতে দিল না।

ডিসেম্বরের ১৪ তারিখ বিরোধী দলগুলি যৌথ সাংবাদিক সম্মেলন করে। লোকসভায় তৃণমূল কংগ্রেসের দলনেতা সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় বলেন, “বিরোধীদের কণ্ঠস্বর রোধ করা হচ্ছে। যা ঘটছে তা খুবই অনভিপ্রেত ও দুর্ভাগ্যজনক।” রাজ্যসভায় ডিসেম্বরের ১৪ তারিখ, নাদিমুল হক তৃণমূল কংগ্রেসের তরফ থেকে “The Right of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2014″র পক্ষে সওয়াল করেন।
ডিসেম্বরের ১৫ তারিখ তৃণমূল কংগ্রেসের সাংসদরা নোটবাতিলের বিরোধিতায় সংসদ চত্বরে ধর্ণা দেন। ওই দিনই লোকসভায় সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় বলেন, “কোনও নিয়ম ছাড়াই আলোচনা হতে পারে।“ যদিও সরকার পক্ষ সেটা হতে দেয় নি।

সংসদের শীতকালীন অধিবেশন শেষ হয় ডিসেম্বরের ১৬ তারিখ।

Dola Sen speaks on The Maternity Benefit Bill, 2016

Posted on August 11, 2016 | by admin2 | Leave a Comment

The object of maternity leave and benefit is to protect the dignity of motherhood by providing for full and healthy maintenance of a woman and her child when she is not working. In today’s age, more and more women are joining the workforce and in this scenario, it is important to ensure that a woman striving for self sufficiency does not have to compromise on her role as a caregiver to her child. Studies have shown that longer maternity leaves are likely to produce health benefits.

Expectant and nursing mothers require special protection to prevent harm to their own health and the infant’s health. They need adequate time to give birth, to recover, and to nurse their children. At the same time, they also require protection to ensure that they will not lose their job simply because of pregnancy or maternity leave. Such protection ensures a woman equal access to employment.

But one point I must say. The proposed Amendment is silent on the question on the aspect of paternity leave. This is one very important point that the Labour Ministry must address. Extending paternity leave will lead to men and women sharing responsibilities of child care. This we have already started practicing in West Bengal under the leadership of our Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Health Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee. This is a progressive step which Bengal is already taking.

The present Bill seeks to increase the maternity leave for women to 26 weeks, as against the current provision of 12 weeks. This is a commendable reform, and I wholeheartedly support this provision. Another good provision is the option of “work from home” for nursing mothers, after completing the duration of their maternity leave, though this will be decided by the employer. It also provides 16 weeks leave for women who adopt a child or opt for surrogacy. In case an establishment employs 50 employees or more, a crèche will have to be provided by the establishment. These are all very progressive provisions and I laud the Government for bringing them.

However, it is important for us to go beyond the books and look at the bigger picture. Women are estimated to be only 30% of all economically active individuals, even though they account for 48% of the population. Only 1% of women are employed in State and Central governments, and 3% in legislative, management and senior official positions.

Maternity benefits are crucial as malnutrition continues to be a huge hurdle. In India, almost one in every three children, or an alarming 4.8 crore children are stunted.

Without benefits, it often becomes difficult for a single mother to provide adequate nutrition for her child. A mother also has to ensure that her child is fully immunised against all types of diseases. India is still a long way off from securing 100% immunisation for all children. In fact, the first phase of the National Family Health Survey 2015-16 revealed that the highest percentage of fully immunised children are from Goa, Sikkim, Puducherry and West Bengal.

Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana is a conditional cash transfer scheme for improved health and nutrition of pregnant and lactating mothers. This scheme is being implemented in 52 districts for women above the age of 19 years for their first two live births. It is estimated that about three crore women get pregnant every year. If Rs 6,000 is to be given to each of them, then Rs 18,000 crore is needed every year. However, in the present budget, only Rs 400 crore has been allocated to the scheme. This needs to be looked into by the Government.

Some more points for consideration. One, it should be addressed by the Government that the timing of this 26 weeks maternity leave should be flexible in nature, and according to the necessity and choice of the pregnant mother. Two, an establishment with 10 employees is entitled to ESI facilities; this Maternity Benefit Bill should not clash with the existing ESI facilities. Three, there are some provisions in the Act for maternity leave allowance or medical bonus for the pregnant mother. I would like to know whether the Government is planning to increase this allowance or medical bonus as it is not at all up to the mark. Four, it is there in the amendment that ‘every establishment shall intimate electronically to every woman at the time of her initial appointment about the benefits available under the Act.’ That means, this Maternity Bill should be implemented from the very first day of the service of the pregnant mother. This Maternity Benefit Bill must address the working woman of the unorganised sector.

I appreciate the thought that the Government has put behind the Bill. We also need to work towards building a future where women hold an equal stake in the every aspect of India’s social, political and economic life. For a child, the most important person in their life is the mother. Let us ensure that we build an India where every woman is free to achieve her dreams, and no child is bereft of the love that only a mother can provide.

Thank you, Sir.

Sudip Bandyopadhyay’s intervention during the introduction of The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016

Posted on August 11, 2016 | by admin2 | Leave a Comment

Madam, I think there is no scope of confusion regarding this Bill. Most Opposition parties have jointly raised their voices. I agree with the proposal of Bhartruhari Mahtab, seconded by Jyotiraditya Scindia.

We also agree that this Bill should go to the Joint Committee. We can make this Bill better after holding discussions. Let the committee be constituted in a time-bound manner. Let further discussions be held in the Committee.

Saugata Roy speaks on The Factories (Amendment) Bill, 2016

Posted on August 10, 2016 | by admin2 | Leave a Comment

Sir I stand to register my protest against The Factories (Amendment) Bill 2016. Kalyan Banerjee, on behalf of our party, has already opposed the Bill. It is very unusual that when a Bill is there under the consideration of the Ministry, just 2 clauses are taken out and introduced as a fresh Bill.

We wanted the minister repeatedly to have the comprehensive Bill which will include some things favourable to the workers. But increasing the hours of overtime will only help the manufacturers, Sir. That has been opposed by all trade unions. It has not ratified ILO conventions and the minister is playing into the hands of the manufacturers and corporate sector to pass a bill against the workers which will make them slaves for 100 hours in a quarter. I totally oppose the Bill. Thank you, Sir.