September 2, 2013 Brief of the points made by Shri Arun Jaitley,Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha While speaking on the Ordinance and the Bill relating to Food Security 1. Abuse of Ordinance issuing powers: The Food Security Ordinance is an abuse of the legislative power to issue Ordinances. An Ordinance under Article 123 is issued when issues of extreme urgency arise and cannot await a forthcoming Parliament Session. The matter must be of such urgency between the date of issuance of the Ordinance and Parliament Session that it is difficult to wait for that period. The Ordinance in the instant case was issued on July 5, 2013 and the Parliament was convened on August 5, 2013. What is it that had to happen between these 30 days that could not wait a legislative discussion and a legislative approval to the Bill? Clause 3 of the Bill provides for priority households to receive a certain amount of subsidized foodgrain. Clause 9 empowers the Central Government to fix a percentage coverage for rural and urban areas. Clause 10 provides for identification and preparation of a list of eligible households within a period of 365 days of the commencement of the Act. Identification and distribution of food grains under this Act can therefore only take place in the latter part of 2014. at the earliest. Till then the existing food grain scheme shall continue. What was the urgency then in issuing the ordinance on July 5, 2013 itself? This is a gross abuse of the ordinance issuing power. 2. The subject matter of this Bill has to be implemented substantially, if not entirely, by the state governments: A perusal of the Bill shows that 30 key functions under this Bill are all to the performed by the State governments. Ration cards are to be issued by the state governments [Clause 2 (16)]. Distribution of the food grains has to be done by the state governments [Clause 3 (1)]. Alteration of the food grains has to be done by the state governments [Clause 3(3)]. Identification of the Anganwadis has to be done by the state governments [Clause 6]. Distribution of mandatory doles has to be done by the state governments [Clause 8]. Identification of the priority households is to be done by the state governments [Clause 10]. Updating of the list is to be done by the State Governments [Clause 10 (2)]. Display of the list has to be done by the State Governments [Clause 11]. Reforms are to be undertaken inter alia by the State Governments [Clause 12]. Grievance redressal mechanism has to be determined by the state governments [Clause 14]. All appointments to the State Food Commission have to be done by the state governments [Clause 16]. It is the obligation of the State Governments to monitor the scheme of the Centre [Clause 24]. Local authorities, being made responsible for this scheme is to be done by the State Government [Clause 25]. Maintenance and public disclosure is to be done by the State Governments [Clause 26]. Authorization of local authorities is to be done by the State Governments [Clause 28]. Rules are to be made by the State Governments [Clause 40]. These are only some of the important functions of the under this law. It is, therefore, essential that not only a wider consultation of the States is held but also that a certain amount of flexibility is given to the States as to the nature of the food distributed. The extent of coverage and the expanse of nutritional value is determined by them. That one size will fit every state is unknown to the federal system of India. Since the law is almost in its entirety to be implemented by the states, it would be appropriate for the Centre to make it mandatory for every state to have a Food Bill. 3. Is it a food security bill or is it merely repackaging of the existing schemes? The contention that this bill gives us statutory right to food rather than entitlement under the existing schemes is fallacious. The language of the bill itself shows that the right is flexible and can be varied by the State. Under Clause 3 (2), the coverage to the extent of 75% rural population and 50% urban population is the outer limit. It is the cap. It is not the mandatory recommendation of the minimum extent of coverage. The words under the Clause make it essential for the eligible households to get food at subsidized prices. It provides that the number of households extends up to 75% of rural population and 50% of urban population. Thus by keeping the percentage as flexible, the right will always at best become an entitlement, because the number of people to be covered under the bill will always remain flexible. Similarly, Clause 9 empowers the Central Government and not the State Governments to vary this percentage coverage. The Bill can be operated only within these parameters. This bill should appropriately be called The Repackaging of Existing Food Schemes Bill, for the following reasons: All existing food schemes provide for subsidy this year upto Rs. 113,000 crores. The Minister has informed the Rajya Sabha on 23rd August 2013 that after the Food Bill, the subsidy will increase to Rs. 125,000 crores. The much touted Food Bill will thus increase the subsidy by only Rs. 12,000 crores. The budget documents for this year under various schemes including the TPDS, Mid Day Meal, ICDS, National Food Security Mission, Computerization and Warehousing, already provided for Rs. 124,844 crores. For the BPL category, the quantum of food grain in fact will reduce from 35 kg per family to 5 kg per person, which amounts roughly 25 kg per month for a family of 5 persons. The number of beneficiaries under the existing food grain schemes is 18.04 crore households i.e. 82.99 crore people. This figure will be reduced to 81.37 crore people under the new scheme. For states such as Chattisgarh and several other states, where 35 kg of food grain, 2 kg of gram/dal, 1.3kg sugar and 2 kg free iodized salt is given to 42 lakh families out of a total of 56 lakh families. The present Food Bill will reduce the entitlement both in terms of extent of coverage as also the nutritional value. The Central legislation therefore must factor in more liberal schemes being offered by the States. The states like Chattisgarh are offering food-grain at Rs. 1/kg. This Act is going to charge twice this price, since the Central Government Scheme provides for twice or thrice the value of the State, it must necessarily factor in the larger schemes being offered by the States. The quantity is reduced and the cost increased. Lastly, the Bill is an abuse of the ordinance issuing power. It legislates on the subject which has to be implemented entirely by the States. It merely repackages the existing schemes of the Government. It neither increases the coverage of the existing schemes nor the financial grant to them. It is inferior to what the State governments are already offering. It is offering lesser food at costlier prices, and yet the UPA government chooses to call it ‘National Food Security Bill’. arunjaitley/en/my-opinion-inside.php?id=220&mode=Read&icatId=7
Posted on: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:48:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015