SYNOPSIS of DEBATES (Proceedings Other Than Questions & Answers) ______
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LOK SABHA ___ SYNOPSIS OF DEBATES (Proceedings other than Questions & Answers) ______ Tuesday, March 21, 2017/Phalguna 30, 1938 (Saka) ______ SUBMISSION BY MEMBERS Re: Need to direct NAFED to purchase more amount of tur pulse THE MINISTER OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION (SHRI RAMVILAS PASWAN) responding to the issue raised by several hon. Members, said: The hon. Members had demanded that three lakh tonnes extra tur pulse be purchased from Gulbarga. Regarding NAFED, it comes under the Ministry of Agriculture. All this involves expenditure and it concerns the Ministry of Finance, yet I immediately ordered for the purchase of 50,000 tonnes of tur pulse. As far as MSP and bonus are concerned, MSP is decided by the Government and bonus by the state governments. Last year the price of tur dal reached upto Rs.200 per kg. and we decided to create a buffer stock of 20 lakh tonnes of pulses for the first time. Out of this about 15 lakh tonnes has already been purchased from all sources. Our earlier stand was to import 10 lakh tonnes dal and purchase of remaining 10 lakh tonnes from domestic sources, but more than about 14 lakh tonnes have already been purchased from domestic sources. I agree with the member's view that the produce of the farmers should be purchased at the maximum MSP. *MATTERS UNDER RULE 377 (i) SHRI SATISH CHANDRA DUBEY laid a statement regarding need to expedite gauge conversion of railway lines from Raxual to Narkatiaganj and Narkatiaganj to Bhiknathori in Valmikinagar parliamentary Constituency, Bihar. (ii) SHRI MUKESH RAJPUT laid a statement regarding need to take measures for welfare of potato growers. (iii) SHRIMATI NEELAM SONKER laid a statement regarding need to provide interest-free loan to unemployed persons for setting up small scale industries under 'Stand up India' scheme in Lalganj Parliamentary Constituency, Uttar Pradesh. (iv) SHRI GANESH SINGH laid a statement regarding need to provide LPG connections to all the eligible BPL households under Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana. * Laid on the Table as directed by the Speaker. (v) SHRI RATTAN LAL KATARIA laid a statement regarding need to provide all the necessary facilities in Ambala having tremendous potential of becoming the economic hub of the country. (vi) SHRI DEVUSINH CHAUHAN laid a statement regarding registration of Hybrid/Electronic Cars. (vii) SHRI RODMAL NAGAR laid a statement regarding need to ensure proper implementation of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. (viii) SHRI BIRENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY laid a statement regarding need to develop Raja Bali Garh and Nau Lakha Temple in Madhubani district, Bihar as a tourist place. (ix) SHRIMATI MEENAKASHI LEKHI laid a statement regarding effective implementation of Mid-Day-Meal Scheme. (x) SHRI NIHAL CHAND laid a statement regarding need to provide full share of water due to Rajasthan from Punjab and nominate a member from Rajasthan in Bhakra Beas Management Board. (xi) SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL laid a statement regarding need to set up a Water Testing Laboratory and Environmental Information System in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. (xii) SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR RAY laid a statement regarding need to provide wages to journalists as per the recommendations of Majithia Wage Board. (xiii) PROF. K.V. THOMAS laid a statement regarding need to constitute a new Wage Board for Media after modifying its terms of reference. (xiv) SHRI M.I. SHANAVAS laid a statement regarding need to extend repayment period of loans by farmers. (xv) SHRI S.P. MUDDAHANUME GOWDA laid a statement regarding need to monitor the residential schools in the country. (xvi) SHRI S. R. VIJAYA KUMAR laid a statement regarding need to make amendments in the MoU regarding Chennai Metro Rail Project. (xvii) SHRI G. HARI laid a statement regarding need to provide financial assistance to Tamil Nadu affected by heavy rains and cyclone. (xviii) SHRIMATI PRATIMA MONDAL laid a statement regarding need to undertake dredging of river Matla River and its tributaries in West Bengal. (xix) PROF. SAUGATA ROY laid a statement regarding rise in encounters against militants in Jammu & Kashmir. (xx) SHRI ARKA KESHARI DEO laid a statement regarding need to construct railway line between Kantabanji & Khariar, Odisha. (xxi) SHRI GAJANAN KIRTIKAR laid a statement regarding need to grant Rs.3 crore annually to each Member of Parliament for construction of toilets in city area of his/her constituency. (xxii) SHRI RAM MOHAN NAIDU KINJARAPU laid a statement regarding need to revamp healthcare and education facilities in rural India. (xxiii) SHRI KOTHA PRABHAKAR REDDY laid a statement regarding need to extend Mid-Day-Meal Scheme to students of 10+2 course. (xxiv) SHRI P. K. BIJU laid a statement regarding fuel surcharge or transaction fee levied by banks on customers. (xxv) KUNWAR HARIBANSH SINGH laid a statement regarding need to provide funds for construction of an auditorium in Pratapgarh Parliamentary Constituency, Uttar Pradesh. (xxvi) SHRI RAJU SHETTY laid a statement regarding need to enact a law legitimizing bull race in rural areas of the country. THE FINANCE BILL, 2017 THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, MINISTER OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND MINISTER OF DEFENCE(SHRI ARUN JAITLEY) moved that the Bill to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2017-18 be taken into consideration. SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN: My serious objection to the Finance Bill, 2017 is under Article 110, and 117 and rule 219(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. Once we have agitated this matter in detail during the introduction of the Finance Bill, 2015. I am forced to repeat the arguments once again. Rule 219(1) is distinct and separate and it is only to give effect to the finance proposals for the year or for the following year, that is, for a particular period, and not of a permanent nature. Article 110(1) of the Constitution of India also elaborately discusses. For the purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters Clauses (a) to (f), which deals with taxation proposals, recovery of money, regulation of the borrowing of money, custody with the Consolidated Fund and the Contingency Fund of India, and appropriation of money under the Consolidated Fund of India and so on. How an issuance of the electoral rolls fall within the taxation proposals over matters incidental to the taxation proposal? That is the question which I would like to know. Just now we have received the list of amendments. 40 existing Acts are proposed to be amended by means of this Finance Bill. When the original Bill was presented on 1st February, 2017, only 8 to 10 Acts were proposed to be amended. These amendments are pushed through this House by suspending Rule 80(i) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. I would like to know whether it is right because Rule 80(i) is very specific and says that an amendment should be related to the matter which is connected with the facts of the original Bill. Unfortunately these things are not connected with the original Bill and these amendments are now being pushed through or they are being bulldozed just a few minutes before. There is the ruling which was given in the year 1956 and in 1970 also the same ruling was given. Madam you also gave ruling on 30.4.2015. This was the ruling, which you had given when the Finance Bill of 2015 was brought in this House when a point of order had been raised by myself and Prof. Saugata Roy. My point is that it is absolutely a backdoor legislation. It cannot be allowed under the pretext of a Finance Bill. I strongly oppose the move to suspend the Rules of Procedure so as to bring very cardinal structural amendments to the existing 30 Acts. It is the legitimate, democratic and supreme right of the Parliament, which is being taken away. So, I strongly oppose moving of this Bill for consideration and passing. I am seeking a ruling from you once again on this aspect. SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Hon. Member's objection is predominantly borne out of the language of Article 110(1). The critical word, according to an hon. Member is the word 'only'; and that is how, another hon. Member supports him that it is only the taxation proposals and nothing else, which is incidental, really can find a place as far as the Money Bill is concerned. With regard to this word 'only', right from the inception of this House, as to what is the width that this word 'only' permits has been a subject matter of debate. Mr. Mavalankar, in his first Ruling on this subject gave the thrust on the point that you cannot have a Bill which says that the Government shall spend Rs.100 thousand. How that is to be spent, the incidental provisions will have to be contained. The fact is that these incidental provisions to the Principal provision exist do not render a Bill to be a Non-Money Bill. That is what Mr. Mavalankar said. Therefore, the word 'only' has to be read in the context of the spirit of Article 110. It is much ado about nothing that you say 40 laws are being amended. What is the amendment? The amendments are incidental to the Acts. In fact these amendments relates to minor changes in the original Acts. The hon. Members also say how is electoral bonds a money Bill? In the Budget announcement, we came out with a proposal that there will be an income tax incentive involved in four different ways.