LOK SABHA ___

SYNOPSIS OF DEBATES (Proceedings other than Questions & Answers) ______

Wednesday, December 11, 2019 / Agrahayana 20, 1941 (Saka) ______

THE PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL, 2019

THE MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE; MINISTER OF

COMMUNICATIONS AND MINISTER OF ELECTRONICS AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD) moved that leave be granted to introduce a Bill to provide for protection of the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data, specify the flow and usage of personal data, create a relationship of trust between persons and entities processing the personal data, protect the rights of individuals whose personal data are processed, to create a framework for organisational and technical measures in processing of data, laying down norms for social media intermediary, cross-border transfer, accountability of entities processing personal data, remedies for unauthorised and harmful processing, and to establish a Data Protection Authority of India for the said purposes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY opposing the Motion for introduction of the Bill, said: I would like to oppose the introduction of the Bill. It is an omnibus legislation. Our privacy is already under threat. When our privacy is under threat and when people are fighting cases in the Supreme Court on the issue of privacy, I think, this kind of Bill should be examined thoroughly. The

Government should not bring this Bill in such a supercilious manner. That is why,

I propose to the Government that this Bill should be referred to Standing

Committee on Information Technology instead of the Joint Parliamentary

Committee.

PROF. SOUGATA RAY: I beg to oppose the introduction of the Personal

Data Protection Bill, 2019. The personal data protection is ensured by the judgement of the Supreme Court which has declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. So, there is no necessity for this Bill. The problem of privacy can be dealt with under existing laws of the country, taking a cue from the

Supreme Court judgement. The setting up of an authority called the Data

Protection Authority of India will further make matters complicated and lead to bureaucratic hassles. Therefore, I wholly oppose the introduction of this Bill, which will not give us the protection from snooping by foreign companies and indigenous companies on our personal data.

SUSHRI MAHUA MOITRA: My primary object is that Parliament lacks legislative competence on account of this Bill being violative of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Most importantly, it fails to provide adequate data protection to our citizens and is violative of the fundamental right to privacy as upheld by the Supreme Court. I also oppose the Bill in its current form and request that it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Information

Technology for a thorough examination.

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD replying said: I would like to very respectfully convey to this House that the Members are right that the Supreme

Court had held that privacy is a fundamental right. But the Supreme Court has also added that any terrorist and a corrupt person has no right to privacy. Secondly, the

Supreme Court in the Aadhaar case itself has emphasized that they must come up with the data protection law. So, I would like to say that we have not come up with this Bill suddenly. For this purpose we set up a Committee. It had the widest consultations in the entire country. In this regard, 2000 recommendations came.

Thereafter, we discussed it and we have come here. Through this Data Protection

Bill, we are safeguarding the rights of Indians. We have got 130 crore population.

We generate a lot of data, but a lot of data is also important for development of economy. One thing I would like to convey to this august House that we have decided to put data into three categories. Critical data cannot go out of India at all.

Sensitive data can go out of India only with the consent of the individual and with the approval of the authority. Again, we have decided that Joint Select Committee of both the Houses would consider it which will be created before the next Budget session. This Joint Select Committee will be dedicated only and only for the Data

Protection Law. So, let the parliamentary process examine this in the most detailed manner possible.

The Bill was introduced.

______

THE CODE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, 2019

THE MINISTER OF STATE OF THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND

EMPLOYMENT (SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR GANGWAR) moved that leave be granted to introduce a Bill to amend and consolidate the laws relating to social security of the employees and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN opposing the Motion for introduction of the Bill, said: I would like to oppose the introduction of the 'Code on Social

Security, 2019' on three grounds. The first ground is that various provisions of the

Bill curtails the existing benefits of workers that is against the mandate of the ILO

Convention. Number two, it is violating Article 42 and 43 of the Constitution. So, social security welfare legislation should comply with the principles of Article 42 and 43. Lastly, the Bill is not circulated two days prior to the introduction of the

Bill which violates the Rules of Procedure. This is a Bill having 163 clauses and six schedules. If a big Bill comes today morning in my office, how can I read the entire Bill. So, I oppose the introduction of the Bill. So, kindly give a specific direction once again reiterating the situation that all the Bill should be circulated two days prior to the introduction of the Bill. Moreover, it is against the working class of this country.

PROF. SOUGATA RAY: This Bill says that it is a follow up of the Labour

Conference in 2003. The Government want to put various Acts like EPF Act, ESI

Act in the same Bill. This was what was wanted by the capitalists, industrialists and Chambers of Commerce of the country. No central trade union has ever demanded the social security legislation should be brought under one umbrella.

Now, they have linked this to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code whereas under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the NCLT is not able to deal with all the problems. So, it should be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on

Labour.

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR GANGWAR replying said: I would like to apprise this august House that this Bill has been brought to remove the complexities of various labour laws. I would also like to submit that all the legislations are brought in this House after having discussions in threadbare. This

Bill has been brought after removing the complexities of various labour laws after having discussions with labour unions. I would like to assure that apprehensions of hon. Members would be dispelled during the discussions.

The Bill was introduced. ______

*MATTERS UNDER RULE 377

(1) SHRI RAMESH BIDHURI laid a statement regarding need to

undertake demarcation of submergence area in Delhi.

(2) SHRIMATI REKHA ARUN VERMA laid a statement regarding

setting up of a steel factory in Dhaurahra Parliamentary Constituency,

Uttar Pradesh.

(3) DR. MANOJ RAJORIA laid a statement regarding need to set up a

Kendriya Vidyalaya in Karauli-Dholpur Parliamentary Constituency,

Rajasthan.

(4) SADHVI PRAGYA SINGH THAKUR laid a statement regarding

need to set up a bench of Jabalpur High Court in Bhopal.

(5) SHRI GAJENDRA UMRAO SINGH PATEL laid a statement

regarding need to provide fertilizer to farmers in Madhya Pradesh.

(6) SHRIMATI DARSHANA VIKRAM JARDOSH laid a statement

regarding need to include persons suffering from colour blindness

under PH category.

* Laid on the Table as directed by the Speaker/Chair. (7) DR VIRENDRA KUMAR laid a statement regarding need to set up

a medical college in Tikamgarh Parliamentary Constituency, Madhya

Pradesh.

(8) DR. SUJAY VIKHE PATIL laid a statement regarding upper

Pravara (Nilwande-II) project of Maharashtra.

(9) SHRI RAJIV PRATAP RUDY laid a statement regarding water

from Western Gandak Canal to Bihar.

(10) SHRI JANARDAN SINGH SIGRIWAL laid a statement regarding

need to allocate 5% seats in trains for general public under HO/EQ on

the recommendation of Members of Parliament.

(11) SHRI JOHN BARLA laid a statement regarding mode of payment

of wages to tea garden workers in West Bengal.

(12) SHRI BHAGIRATH CHOUDHARY laid a statement regarding

need to reduce the rate of GST on marble and granite.

(13) DR. ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA laid a statement regarding need

to set up CGHS dispensaries in Rohtak and Jhajjar districts, Haryana.

(14) SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR CHOUDHARY laid a statement

regarding need to construct approach road on both sides of Yamuna

river bridge in Kairana Parliamentary Constituency, Uttar Pradesh. (15) SHRI GIRISH BHALCHANDRA BAPAT laid a statement

regarding need to ensure toilet facilities and their regular cleanliness

at petrol pumps across the country.

(16) SHRI RAKESH SINGH laid a statement regarding need to start

construction of sanctioned flyover in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.

(17) SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR laid a statement regarding need to

extend Rewari-Sikar train no. 59728/29 upto Jaipur and also run train

no. 12955/56 through Reengas, Sikar, Jhunjhunu, Surajgarh and

Loharu.

(18) SHRI BALUBHAU ALIAS SURESH NARAYAN DHANORKAR

laid a statement regarding issues pertaining to farmers of Chandrapur

district of Maharashtra.

(19) ADV. ADOOR PRAKASH laid a statement regarding problems

being faced by fishing community.

(20) SHRI DEEPAK BAIJ laid a statement regarding need to extend the

benefit of Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme to forest

dwellers and Adivasi people of Chhattisgarh.

(21) DR. D. RAVIKUMAR laid a statement regarding proper

implementation of e-waste law.

(22) KUMARI GODDETI MADHAVI laid a statement regarding need

to remove the condition of number of habitations for construction of roads under PMGSY in Araku Parliamentary Constituency, Andhra

Pradesh.

(23) SHRIMATI CHINTA ANURADHA laid a statement regarding sea

erosion along coastline of Andhra Pradesh.

(24) SUSHRI NUSRAT JAHAN RUHI laid a statement regarding need

to request Government to Bangladesh to start dredging in Icchamati

river, flowing from Bangladesh into India.

(25) SHRIMATI PRATIMA MONDAL laid a statement regarding need

to protect Sundarbans in West Bengal.

(26) SHRI PRATAPRAO JADHAV laid a statement regarding need to

provide specialist doctors and dialysis centre in Buldhana

Parliamentary Constituency, Maharashtra and also provide safe

drinking water in the constituency.

(27) SHRI DINESH CHANDRA YADAV laid a statement regarding

need to start telecast of programmes from Doordarshan Kendra at

Diwari sthan in Saharsa district, Bihar.

(28) SHRI BHARTRUHARI MAHTAB laid a statement regarding

sharing of coal cess between Centre and States.

(29) DR. G. RANJITH REDDY laid a statement regarding setting up of

a AYUSH hospital in Vikarabad, Telangana. (30) SHRI K. SUBBARAYAN laid a statement regarding Budgetary

allocation for Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee

Scheme.

______

MOTION

Re: Reference of Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 to Joint Select Committee

THE MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE; MINISTER OF

COMMUNICATIONS AND MINISTER OF ELECTRONICS AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD) moved that the Bill to provide for protection of the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data, specify the flow and usage of personal data, create a relationship of trust between persons and entities processing the personal data, protect the rights of individuals whose personal data are processed, to create a framework for organisational and technical measures in processing of data, laying down norms for social media intermediary, cross-border transfer, accountability of entities processing personal data, remedies for unauthorised and harmful processing, and to establish a Data Protection Authority of India for the said purposes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto be referred to a

Joint Committee of the Houses consisting of the following 20 Members from this

House, namely, Shrimati Meenakashi Lekhi, Shri P. P. Chaudhary, Shri S.S. Ahluwalia, Shri Tejasvi Surya, Adv. Ajay Bhatt, Col. Rajyavardhan Rathore, Dr.

Sanjay Jaiswal, Dr. (Prof.) Kirit Premjibhai Solanki, Shri Arvind Dharmapuri,

Dr. Heena Vijaykumar Gavit, Shri Uday Pratap Singh, Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh '

Lalan', Shri Gaurav Gogoi, Sushri S Jothimani, Prof. Sougata Ray, Shrimati

Kanimozhi, Shri P.V. Midhun Reddy, Dr. Shrikant Eknath Shinde, Shri

Bhartruhari Mahtab, Shri Ritesh Pandey and 10 Members from the Rajya Sabha;

that in order to constitute a sitting of the Joint Committee the quorum shall be one-third of the total number of Members of the Joint Committee;

that Committee shall make a report to this House by the first day of the last week of the Budget Session, 2020;

that in other respects the Rules of Procedure of this House relating to

Parliamentary Committee shall apply with such variations and modifications as the

Speaker may make;

that this House recommends to Rajya Sabha that Rajya Sabha do join the said Joint Committee and communicate to this House the names of the Members to be appointed by Rajya Sabha to the Joint Committee; and

that the Speaker shall appoint one of the Members of the Committee to be its

Chairperson.

Amendment was put to vote and negatived.

The Motion was adopted.

______THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES CENTRES

AUTHORITY BILL, 2019

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE AND MINISTER OF CORPORATE

AFFAIRS (SHRIMATI NIRMALA SITHARAMAN) moving the Motion for consideration of the Bill, said: A Committee appointed by the Minister of Finance in 2008, headed by an eminent person called Shri Percy Mistry had gone through the entire issue of Financial Services. Even at that time, it was felt that US $50 billion will be spent on International Financial Services by the Indian Companies by 2015 and that amount would obviously be going outside of the country because we do not have an International Financial Services Centre. Therefore, from then, the necessity of having a Financial Services Centre in India was recognized. In

2011, a Section in the SEZ Act, namely, Section 18 was brought in distinctly for establishing a Financial Services Centre. It was made completely operationalized by 2015 because the various regulators who deal with various financial institutions such as the RBI, the SEBI, the PFRDA and so on started issuing their notifications to regulate those institutions, which are now functioning in the GIFT-City of

Ahmedabad, which we in short refer to as International Financial Services Centre.

Now, through this Bill, we are largely doing two things. One, we are bringing several of these regulators together as one unit to the limited extent of having to deal with the various institutions, which are present in the IFC. Together with it, we are also making it clear and defining as to what are the actual businesses, which are being recognized there. We are defining the various financial products whether they are services or institutions. We are also defining IT enabled services in the financial sector. They alone, in that IFSC, are providing employment to more than

10,000 people all of whom are engaged actively in the backroom processing of financial matters for global companies. Therefore, in short, what I would like to say is that this Bill is something, which was foreseen a long time ago. We want a unified authority to deal with a particular specialised financial services hub which will in this country have something similar to London or Singapore in terms of international financial hub which will be giving the opportunities to Indian companies to be able to access international markets and deal with international markets through this centre. It has already been given quite a few tax concessional benefits. This Bill was earlier proposed in the Rajya Sabha but however because it was meant to be tabled only in Lok Sabha, being the Finance Bill, we had to withdraw from Rajya Sabha in spite of having obtained the Cabinet’s approval in

February, 2019. We have now come before Lok Sabha for consideration of Bill.

SHRI KARTI P CHIDAMBARAM initiating said: Economics is not only about numbers. Numbers sometimes do not tell the whole story. Numbers can be antiseptic. But the real story is the human story. When business is down, when people are not selling enough, there is human cost. When people are less employed, it means they have less money in their wallets. The Government really should be focusing on the demand side and not on the supply side. I understand the Government’s desire to create an economic hub of international standards in

India. It is indeed a laudable goal. When you think about the provisions of this

Bill, it will only be applied to the thousand acres of land in India’s favourite State, and to the GIFT city in Gandhi Nagar. What this Government needs to realize is that it is not just enough to create institutions, build tech parks and offer tax rebates, the reason New York, Singapore and London are what they are because of the societal infrastructure. For business to thrive, you need to attract global talent.

When I say global talent, I do not mean just NRIs but truly non-Indian global talent from the biggest universities. This Gift City is also marred in controversy and delays. This Bill is applicable to only one place. Therefore, it is imperative for this House to understand the viability and the status of this project. In efforts to get rid of multiple layers of bureaucracy, the creation of the IFSC Authority should not lead to turf wars between the new and the old authorities of RBI, SEBI and IRDA.

Financial hubs require transparency and clarity in processes. I urge this

Government to first focus on to create social infrastructure. Otherwise, dreams of competing with IFSC Singapore and London would simply be farfetched.

SHRI P. P. CHAUDHARY: I rise to support this Bill. The international

Financial Services Centre Authority Bill is in fact a game changer for our country.

The impact of this Bill is immense. This is the first time that this Bill is before this august House. Out of 196 countries in the world, around 80 countries have developed the International Financial Services Centres but in India, it is too late. So, bringing this Bill is the need of the hour. We will need excellent infrastructure and best regulatory practices. I request the hon. Minister to kindly see that in this

Centre we have sufficient capital and excellent infrastructure of world standard. I think sufficient safeguards have been provided in the Bill itself for enabling the best regulatory practices. I would like to say that India is a hinterland economy.

Places like Singapore and Dubai lack this facility. The Finance Ministry has taken an initiative in this direction and we have to compete with Dubai, Singapore and

Hong Kong. It can boost the economy on this count also and generate employment. In India, we have seen that so many financial sectors are there like commercial banks, insurance companies, non-banking financial companies, co- operative, pension funds and mutual funds. So, there is a need to remove this dichotomy. This Bill is going to unify all these sectors and whatever powers are being exercised by those regulators will be exercised by this particular Authority.

So, it would be very easy and convenient and enhance the ease of doing business.

Earlier the work allocation with respect to various regulators and various sectors was not so well defined. Therefore, sometimes, there was overlapping, sometimes, disputes arose. On account of the regulatory gaps in various sectors and various regulators, people had been cheated. The ponzi schemes were not regulated by any of the existing agencies. Apart from the Authority, the Performance Review

Committee has also been provided in the Bill. Tax exemption has also been provided. I support this Bill. SHRI D. M. KATHIR ANAND: A lot of manufacturing is happening in the South. Andhra Pradesh has got its automobile industry. Karnataka has Infosys and software technology parks, then why this Centre is being set up in

Gandhinagar in Gujarat? An investment target of Rs. 78,000 crore had been set for the Special Economic Zone. The city has attracted only Rs. 9800 crore. How will the new Bill attract more investors when there is an overall economic slump? The main partner of GIFT is in huge financial trouble and its future is uncertain. The fact that the members of the Authority itself are in-charge of reviewing the working of the Authority is a matter of concern and such a thing could lead to biased decisions. Though I support the need for establishment of such an

Authority that creates special provisions for the Financial Services Centre, I also firmly believe that it should be independent and be table to make its own policy decisions. Today is the birth anniversary of our great Tamil poet, Bharathiyar and

I feel so happy and privileged to give my debut speech here on this occasion.

PROF. SOUGATA RAY: There is nothing to oppose in the International

Financial Services Centres Authority Bill, 2019. The only point is, this Bill is overdue. The decision to set up this institution in Gujarat was entirely a political decision. The GIFT City project is in dire trouble, because the new Board of ILFS, admitted that they will not be able to pay off their debt to their financial creditors.

So, the basic financial infrastructure of the GIFT City is collapsing. Little places like Singapore, London and New York have become international trading hubs. Now Dubai and Shanghai are coming up, but in 70 years of independence, we have not been able to make a trading hub in this country. So, I want the Finance

Minister to plug all the loopholes that are present in the GIFT City.

SHRI SRIDHAR KOTAGIRI: I support the International Financial

Services Centres Authority Bill, 2019 with no reservations. Until 2015, Indian corporate entities continued to seek international financial services and transactions in offshore financial centres. However, with the arrival of an IFSC in Gujarat, we have emerged as a progressively competitive financial centre. India is hungry for the kind of capital whose cost is at par with the rest of the world. While Indians need access to internationally diversified investments, foreign investors need smooth access to the growing domestic economy. We need to grow as an economy to match our aspiring population. My own Parliamentary constituency, Eluru, has several issues concerning infrastructure. I must mention that a 500 kms freight canal was proposed by the Central Government between Kakinada and Puducherry almost five years ago, but there is no sign of progress due to lack of funds. I would also like the Government to create a stronger atmosphere of confidence and ease of doing business in India. I do hope, Andhra Pradesh stands next in line for the next centre. The initiative to regulate the IFSCs should, by no means, slow down business interests.

SHRI RAHUL RAMESH SHEWALE: IFSCs would certainly aid in improving the current economic climate, by attracting inflow of financial resources into India. It would also increase the demand for INR in the international market along with new business opportunities of providing financial services to the global market. Though I support the need to set up a single regulatory body but I disagree with the Government's view of the Authority's role. Having 2 Members in the

Performance Review Committee from the Authority will lead to conflict of interest. Any review of performance must be carried out by an independent third party agency. I would like to propose to the Minister to set up an IFSC in Mumbai as it enjoys all the necessary requirements to set up an international financial centre and is home to the Bombay and the National Stock Exchanges. Also, country's first IFSC in Gujarat has not been able to take off in the manner that the

Government assumed it would.

SHRI B. B. PATIL: It would provide Indian corporates easier access to global financial markets and promote further development of financial markets in

India. Currently, the banking, capital markets and insurance sectors in IFSC are regulated by multiple regulators like RBI, SEBI and IRDAI. Hence, there is a need for having a unified regulator for IFSCs in India. This would also be essential from an 'ease of doing business' perspective. The establishment of a unified financial regulator for IFSCs will result in providing world-class regulatory environment. This would also generate significant employment in the IFSCs. I am requesting the hon. Finance Minister to establish an IFSC centre in South India and

Hyderabad is a suitable and centrally located place for this. SHRI KAUSHLENDRA KUMAR: This Bill will strengthen the financial market and increase the employment opportunities in India. My suggestion to the

Government is to provide a robust monitoring system to detect scams. Stringent punishment should be given in the event of any deceitfulness. Such person can even be banned for lifetime. We should also ensure fast track decisions in this regard.

SHRI PINAKI MISRA: With regard to the concept of the IFSC, I must say that the idea to locate it in the Gandhinagar GIFT city is wrong as the long- pending application of the Bandra Kurla Complex has been ignored by the

Government. No one knows as to when and how GIFT city is going to take off.

The state is dedicated to prohibition and it will not allow such type of international agency to flourish. I think you have to give a massive slew of incentives in order for people to come there. The Government should liberalize the entire process and fast-track applications. Plus, I think we should internationalize our operations to ensure that international market are integrated with Indian markets. The Bill provides that no member shall hold office without prior approval of the Central

Government for a period of two years. I think the Government should adhere to this restrictive clause. As regard, the Performance Review Committee, the audit must be conducted by an outside agency. The Minister should tell us whether the

Right to Information Act will apply to this or not. As regard, the dispute resolution, the Government must follow the Dubai International Financial Centre. SHRI RITESH PANDEY: It is clear from the Bill that all the powers with regard to the functioning of the IFSC have been concentrated in the Government.

Independent and robust financial institutions are imperative for a strong economy.

But if the Government holds arbitrary power to change the system at any time, the investors will panic and flee the country. We should have long term economic policies in our country.

SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SADANAND SULE: The hon. Finance Minister in her opening remarks said that about 10,000 jobs were created because of the back-office work. I feel that we must do the cost-benefit analysis of the amount of investment that we have put in and the return that we are getting. We must ask ourselves whether IFSC is a good option or IT Infotech Parks are better than that. I would also like to say that Mumbai should not have been denied this opportunity.

In fact they could have had Gandhinagar and Mumbai both. Further, it is said that it will flourish only when GDP is over ten per cent and the public debt is lower. I would also like to know the definition of on-shore and off-shore investment. A lot has been said about Singapore and London but those are different economies. I understand that there is no need for disclosure. If it is so, then this is money laundering. I hope that the hon. Minister will clear our doubt in this regard. We do not need tax haven in this country. What we need is a transparent and a fair taxation system. SHRI KESINENI SRINIVAS: I would like to request the hon. Finance

Minister to clarify what the criteria will be for selection of two members who will be appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. I would also like to ask the hon. Finance Minister whether plans of giving tax cuts and other incentives are in place to attract units to come to India. The Minister should take steps for popularizing the cross-border transactions in the rupee terms. The

Government should set up an IFSC in Amravati, the capital of Andhra Pradesh.

* SHRI S. VENKATESAN: The International Financial Services Centres

Authority Bill, 2019 intends to expand international market for the Indian business tycoons and to expand the way for making Indian capitalists as he international capitalists. This Bill proposes amendments to 14 Acts including the RBI Act,

Insurance Law, Banking Regulation Act. Above all these institutions, this

Authority is being set-up with extra-ordinary powers. We consider clause 25 as a dangerous one. The Authority will be vested with enormous powers so that CBI,

ED or the Prevention of Corruption Acts will not be able to question or investigate.

The Government is either diluting the laws or making an Authority which is above all these regulatory set-ups. We have come to know that reputed financial institutions with vast experience like RBI are not even being consulted by the

Union Government. At the time when the Indian economy is facing distress, we

* Original in Tamil should be more cautious while setting up such an authority through this Bill. I urge that this Bill should be sent to Select Committee for examination.

SHRI AJAY MISRA TENI: I support the International Financial Services

Centres Authority Bill, which has been brought in for establishing, regulating and corporatizing International Financial Services Centres. If fact, the objective of this

Bill is to provide world class facilities to the businessmen in our country and develop such centres which would be helpful in bringing back those global business companies which had migrated to other countries. Besides, the international foreign institutions intending to do business in our country and foreign and institutional investors, eligible under FEMA, can also participate in these centres. The centre set up in Ahmedabad in the year 2017 is operating successfully. It has been ranked third in the Global Financial Index. I would like to request the Hon. Minister to set up a Custom Centre in Bhanpuri Khajuria and a certification centre for certification of fruits and vegetables in Gauriphanta in my constituency Lakhimpur with the assistance from Agriculture Ministry in order to boost international trade in that region.

SHRI E. T. MOHAMMED BASHEER: This is a new system. The IFSC will have all kinds of power that will avoid the delay and unnecessary paraphernalia. The Percy Mistry Committee which is the main brain behind the idea of IFSC also gave recommendations about 'Democracy' and 'Rule of Law'. DR. AMAR SINGH: As per available on record international experience, the first IFSC was constituted at Dublin in Ireland. Today it is the greatest tape haven of the world. A tax of one hundred billion dollar is annually evaded there. I hope that international experienced must be kept in view while formulating this bill.

SHRI UNMESH BHAIYYASAHEB PATIL: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the International Financial Services Authority Bill,

2019. By facilitating the establishment of International Financial Services Centres in Special Economic Zones in the country, this Bill will definitely be a booster- short or a catalyst for our economic growth and development. It will not be wrong to say that the Bill will bring a financial revolution in the country towards achieving the hon. Prime MInister Modi's goal of a five trillion Indian economy. It is important to creat regional centres through the setting up of IFSC in SEZs.

Regional centres can be an economic ecosystem created around the IFSC. My constituency Jalgaon is the leading producer of plastic, gold and cotton in the country. The investment invited through the IFSCs must be used to enhance the capabilities of such local businesses. Export and import units can be established in

Jalgaon.

SHRI ANTO ANTONY: This Bill seeks to establish a single authority to develop and regulate the various financial services, products and institutions set up in the International Financial Services Centres set up in Special Economic Zones across the country. The performance of SEZs reveals that out of 392 notified SEZs, only 152 undertake any business. The domestic companies conspire with the foreign citizens and companies, and misuse the land for real estate business. I believe, this bill, quietly, and literally so, cuts the throat of RBI. The Bill negates the RBI Act and the SEBI Act and the Bill is a war-cry against the economic independence of our country.

SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY: First of all, 6000 Indian entrepreneurs have migrated from our country in the last two years. Under the liberalized remittance scheme, USD 45 billion have also migrated. On one hand, the hon. Minister is talking about establishing a global financial hub in India. But on the other hand, the Government is failing to entice or allure those promising entrepreneurs. The IL&FS was a stakeholder with 50 per cent stake in the GIFT

City. It is reported that IL&FS has collapsed and its stake has been bought by the

Government. Is it true? What is the present status of the GIFT City? Secondly, the

Government is invoking unified authority which implies the centralization of the authority. These two issues need to be clarified.

SUSHRI MAHUA MOITRA: The intent of this Bill is absolutely noble, but it is quite ironic that in a country as large as ours, 70 years after independence you are bringing in a Bill that is converging powers into a single regulator and it is only brought in for the purpose of a single International Financial Services Centre that was announced four and a half years ago. So, if you look at the development status of this particular GIFT City that has come up in Gandhinagar, only 3 million square feet of the planned development of 62 million square feet has been built.

The original plan was that the IL&FS, which is now a bankrupt defunct entity, was in a 50:50 joint venture with the Gujarat Urban Development Company Limited.

The IL&FS has since collapsed. What is the new way that you are going to take this forward? The application for BKC, Mumbai as an international financial services centre has been pending for years. All of us would be single-minded in our approach that Mumbai perhaps deserves it more than any other city in India. So, why is it being done for Gandhinagar?

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN: We are having an Insurance

Regulatory Development Authority, the Reserve Bank of India, SEBI, as well as the PFRDAI. There are so many authorities that we have under various Acts. Now, the hon. Minister, by means of this Bill, is creating a new authority, that is,

International Financial Services Centres Authority. This means, all other legislation which we have passed are indirectly being amended by means of a legislation. It is not good for a healthy democracy because it is the domain of the

Parliament. The Parliament's supremacy is being taken away by Clause 31. I strongly object to the provisions in Clause 31.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE AND MINISTER OF CORPORATE

AFFAIRS (SHRIMATI NIRMALA SITHARAMAN) replying, said: The Bill is certainly trying to get one authority which would be a single sort of window to take care of the financial center which is being established in Gandhinagar. The clearance for such an SEZ exclusively for financial purpose was not given in 2015.

The application for setting up an SEZ exclusively for financial services was made by the State of Gujarat in 2011 and its permission was given by the then

Commerce Ministry under the UPA Government on 18th August, 2011 for setting up IFSC at Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Then Finance Minister, in his Budget Speech,

2015, had very clearly said that the first phase of GIFT as an International

Finance Centre would soon become a reality in 2016. Competitive tax regimes were announced by the FSC. The exemptions were provided in 2017 and 2017 also saw a tie up with Singapore and International Arbitration Centre for dispute resolution mechanism to be set up. Then in 2018, setting up a unified regulator for

IFSC was announced. Additional tax reforms were also announced in 2018. Then

2019 also saw 13 banks, 19 insurance firms and around 50 capital market entities licensed in IFSC. Now, we are seeing the IFSC Authority Bill. It is being set up in

Gandhi Nagar because the first GIFT city is already under development in Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Firstly, we have to utilise fully that one, and then we can think of another. States can apply, if they want to set up more centers. So, there is nothing which says that there cannot be a second one. We want to get one

Authority which can oversee all these operations. That does not mean that the regulators and their independence and the power that they enjoy is getting undermined. It is only for the purpose that they all become one and people have not to run to several authorities for clearances. The Authority will be subject to

CAG, and to CVC, and oversights of all of them will apply on the Authority. The

Ministry of Finance, as an independent body not as a part of government, is responsible for regulating the financial transactions of the IFSC. If eight to ten per cent growth can be sustained, it will be better for this institution. The public debt to

GDP of the Central Government today is showing a reducing trend from 52.2 percent in 2013-14 to 49.4 percent in 2018-19. We have done a cost benefit analysis for a big venture like this. The Committee in 2008, recognised that the loss to the country by 2015 of those Financial Services fees going out of the country would be much more than 50 billion. We are amending 14 Acts which are referred by all the regulators like RBI, SEBI, IRDA, PFRDA while performing their duties as regulators. The Clause 31 of this Bill does not give a carte blanche to amend any central legislation. It is not taking away the legislative supremacy of the Parliament. There are several precedents. It is like Clause 49 of the SEZ Act of

2005. ED, PMLA and CBI would all be able to function there as they are now.

Every money laundering related measure which the Government takes will be fully applicable even in the IFSC. Tax holiday is given for IFSC only for 10 years and that is in line with the policy adopted under the SEZ Policy. Tax holiday is only with a Sunset clause. As regards IL&FS, Government of Gujarat would want to take over IL&FS’s part in the context of the difficulties being faced by IL&FS.

The Performance Regulatory Committee (PRC) is one of the ways in which performance is monitored. It is following the best practices which prevail globally.

We have unified all of them, so that there is a single window. But regulators will work even there.

The Bill was passed.

SNEHLATA SHRIVASTAVA Secretary General

© 2019 BY LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NOTE: It is the verbatim Debate of the Lok Sabha and not the Synopsis that should be considered authoritative.

English and Hindi versions of Synopses of Lok Sabha Debates are also available at http://loksabha.nic.in.