Synopsis of Debate

RAJYA SABHA __________ ∗SYNOPSIS OF DEBATE __________ (Proceedings other than Questions and Answers) __________ Wednesday, December 16, 2009/ Agrahayana 25, 1931 (Saka) __________ MATTER RAISED WITH PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR Countrywide protests and demonstrations being staged by the Central Trade Unions SHRI TAPAN KUMAR SEN: All the trade unions in the country are holding protests, dharnas and demonstrations throughout the country against price rise and in action of the Government on the issue, against the distorted package of stimulus to the corporates and ongoing retrenchment of the workers in the name of recession. It is deplorable as to why the Government is benevolent in giving 4, 20,000 crore rupees concession to the big corporates in the name of tax forgone. They are refusing to spend only 70,000 crore rupees per annum to contain the price rise and also refusing to declare a ban on speculation on commodities which is basically responsible for this back-breaking price rise. If the Government does not act, the workers will be compelled to go for further action. I demand upon the Government, that the situation needs a complete reversal of the policy direction. Please, contain price rise, ban speculation in the commodities, universalize the public distribution system and ensure total implementation of the labour laws. ______________________________________________ ∗This Synopsis is not an authoritative record of the proceedings of the Rajya Sabha. 295 SHRI S.S. AHLUWALIA: The concerns of workers, particularly about price rise and out-sourcing of workers, privatization and merger need to be addressed urgently. (Shri Prasanta Chatterjee, Shrimati Brinda Karat, Shri Penumalli Madhu, Shri P. Rajeeve, Shri Kalraj Mishra, Shri Abani Roy, Shri Rudra Narayan Pany, Shri Krishan Lal Balmiki and Shri Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi associated.) _________ GOVERNMENT BILLS Essential Commodities (Amendments and the Validation) Bill, 2009- Contd. SHRI VEER PAL SINGH YADAV: This bill is brought in order to provide benefit to sugar mill owners. This is absolutely against the interests of the farmers. This has four parameters while fixing the price of sugar. The minimum price fixed for sugarcane by the Central Government, the manufacturing cost of the sugar, the payable duty or tax upon the cost and the capital investment in the business of sugar. The sugar mill owner manufactures not only sugar, but sells bagasse, treacle and detritus is used and sold as fertilizer. This time the Central Government has issued an ordinance and perhaps the rate of sugarcane is fixed Rs. 129.70, whereas the Government of Uttar Pradesh fixed the rates as Rs. 165/- and Rs. 170/- How much cost comes in growing sugarcane, this has not been considered either by you or by the state government. On one hectare farm, the cost of growing sugarcane from beginning to transporting upto mill comes around Rs. 1,12,150/- but what cost are you paying to farmers? The Central Government has announced Rs. 78, 000/- and the State Government has announced Rs. 99,000/- Thus the cost is one lakh and the income is less than one lakh. In such situation, how will sugarcane be produced? When the sugarcane is not produced, how will you fix the prices of sugar? Therefore, I submit that unless you do not consider the compulsions of the farmer, how it is going to work. It is hard to find any worker for the sugarcane farming. Because, the workers are getting Rs. 100 under NAREGA easily. Not only this, the crop of sugarcane is destroyed in a big scale by the 'Nelgai' and monkeys. If 296 proper attention is not paid, sugar will be available in substandard form as other items in the market. SHRI SYED AZEEZ PASHA: The proposed Bill and the amendments are meant to validate the Ordinance which was promulgated on 21st October. Soon after the promulgation of these two Ordinances, suddenly, the farmers were up in arms. There was a widespread agitation, throughout the Northern India, protesting against these Ordinances. It seems that these amendments are brought in only for the support of mill owners. It is not going to protect any other persons. I presume that there is a nexus between the mill owners and the Government. When they are manipulating the market price, the Government does not have any sort of strategy to tackle this manipulation. Though the percentage of levy sugar is raised from 10 per cent to 20 per cent, it is not adequate. We have to take some deterrent action so that the levy sugar is given in time. Previously we used to have supermarkets. All those supermarkets were closed. Now, MNCs and joint companies have come into the market. This is also one of the reasons why the price rise is taking place. SHRI RAJNITI PRASAD: The Government has waived off the loans of farmers of this country to the tune of Rs. 60,000. But, what decision has been taken about the pending 14-15,000 crore rupees payable to sugarcane growers. The amendment was brought when the Supreme Court made you a party and gave decision against you. Then you made a law and said that you are going to make an amendment. You said that you will try to give fair and remunerative price for sugarcane. The objective of the Bill may be good; but when another Government comes in power, how shall we be able to get remunerative prices? Therefore the farmers who produce sugarcane should be empowered to fix its price. If it is not done, the production of sugarcane will have to be stopped. There should be a good intention so that the farmers can get fair price for the sugarcane which they supply to the sugar factories. SHRI TIRUCHI SIVA: I rise to support this Bill. There was added an explanation by the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 that the Central Government, while procuring levy sugar, would not pay any price in excess of that calculated on the basis of the Minimum Price (SMP) for sugarcane set by the Central Government. 297 The Supreme Court has ruled that the price of levy sugar should include the additional price as indicated in Section 5 A of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. So this amendment has negated the judgement. The Ordinance also amended the price to be paid to sugar producers by the Central Government for procuring levy sugar. Earlier the price was based on the SMP for sugarcane and included the other costs and return. What are the implications of all these? With effect from 1974, the Central Government, shall not pay any price for levy sugar higher than that based on SMP. This is expected to save Rs. 14,000 crore that the Government will have to pay to sugar mills otherwise. I am sorry to say that the Central Government will not take into account any higher price paid or payable for sugarcane by sugar mill. But, I support the FRP which will include a reasonable margin to the sugarcane growers for risk and profit. Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 specifies the method of computing the price to be paid by sugar mills to the farmers. That provides for sharing of profits of the sugar mills with the farmers. This is called the Bhargava Formula. After the deletion of clause 5A and the Second Schedule, the sugar mills shall not pay an additional price based on the Bhargava Formula. Therefore, the amendment has created confusion among the farmers who are thinking that they have been deprived of something. It should be kept in mind that the production of sugar has come down from 280 lakh tonnes to 150 lakh tonnes. The sugar factories are not ready to share profits with the farmers. As we represent the poor farmers, we do not want the deletion of clause 5A of the Sugarcane Order and inclusion of 3B in the Amendment Order. Clause 5 should also not be deleted to save the State Government from extra burden so that the farmers can share profit with the sugar mills. The recommendation of the National Farmers Commission should also be taken into consideration. SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: On account of the Essential Commodities Act the farmers have fallen in debt and committed a large number of suicides. There have been four to five amendments per year under the Sugar Control Act during the past 10 to 15 years. In respect of the fixation of prices of levy sugar, the Supreme Court's conclusion is that the Central Government had earlier taken a different position and therefore it refrains from taking a different position now. As a consequence of a wrong decision taken earlier, the Government might be required to pay certain sums to the sugar mills. But the Government should have 298 sought other ways to solve the problem. Here the proposal to give validation from 36 years is improper. The fair and reasonable price is neither fair nor reasonable. That the cost of production of sugar in different regions is varying, has not been taken into consideration. Nothing has been thought of the prices of by-products like molasses biogasse etc. which can be claimed by the farmers. It is being heard that the sugar mills will be required to pay the difference between the FRP and the SAP. This is reasonable in respect of Uttar Pradesh, not for other States because the farmers are themselves the owner of mills. It would have been better if the Government had scrapped the levy system and followed the recommendations of the committees to decontrol the entire sugar industry. There should have been a complete liberalization in the field of sugarcane and sugar.

Load more