MKS/SCH/11.00/1A

The House met at eleven of the clock,

MR. CHAIRMAN in the Chair.

----

PAPERS LAID ON THE TABLE

 

1. SHRI SURESH PACHOURI: Sir, on behalf of DR. MANMOHAN SINGH  I lay on the Table a copy  (in English and Hindi) of the Report by the US - India CEO Forum, March, 2006, on the US - India Strategic Economic Partnership.

2.  SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR  : Sir, I lay on the Table a copy each   (in English and Hindi) of the following papers:

(i)

 

 

(a)     Outcome Budget for the year  2006 - 07 of the   Ministry   of Youth Affairs and Sports; and

(b)    Performance Budget for the year 2006 - 07 of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.

(ii)

(a)    Annual Report and Accounts of the    Rajiv   Gandhi   National Institute of Youth Development, Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, for the year 2004-2005, together with the Auditor's Report on the Accounts.   

 

(b)  Review by Government on the working of the above Institute.

 

(c)      Statement giving reasons for the delay in laying the papers mentioned at (a) above.

3.  SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Sir, I lay on the Table  a copy each (in English and Hindi) of the following papers -

 

(i)     Outcome Budget for  the year 2006 - 07 of the Ministry of  Ocean Development; and

 

(ii)           Performance Budget for the year 2005 - 06 of the Ministry of Ocean Development.

4. SHRI SURESH PACHOURI: Sir on behalf of SHRIMATI PANABAKA LAKSHMI I lay on the Table a copy each   (in English and Hindi) of the following papers:

 

(a)  Annual Report and Accounts of the National Institute of  Biologicals (NIB), NOIDA (U.P.), for the year 2004-2005, together with the Auditor's Report on the Accounts.   

 

(b)      Statement giving reasons for the delay in laying the papers  mentioned at (a) above

 

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, all the papers are laid only by the Parliamentary Affairs Minister. (ENDS)

REPORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS

 

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY (ANDHRA PRADESH): Sir I present the following Reports (in English and Hindi) of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests:

(i)   One Hundred Fifty-third Report on action taken by Government on the recommendations contained in the One Hundred Forty-sixth Report of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests on the Demands for Grants (2005-2006) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

(ii)                  One Hundred Fifty-fourth Report on the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2005.

(Ends)

REPORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE

SHRIMATI N. P. DURGA (ANDHRA PRADESH): Sir, I lay on the Table a copy each (in English and Hindi) of the following Reports of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee  (2005-2006):

(i)    Eighth Report on Action Taken by the Government on the Recommendations contained in the Second Report of the Committee (Fourteenth Lok Sabha) on Demands for Grants (2005-2006) of the Ministry of Defence; and

(ii)                 Ninth Report of the Committee on Defence Public Sector Undertakings. (Ends)

BILL INTRODUCED

THE CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF ENGLISH AND FOREIGN

LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY BILL, 2006

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (SHRI MD. ALI ASHRAF FATMI): Sir, on behalf of Shri Arjun Singh, I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill to establish and incorporate a teaching University for promotion and development of English and other Foreign Languages and their Literature, and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

The question was put and the motion was adopted.

SHRI MD. ALI ASHRAF FATMI: Sir, I introduce the Bill. (Ends)

THE APPROPRIATION (NO.3) BILL, 2006

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM): Sir, I beg to move:

That the Bill to authorise payment and appropriation of certain

sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India for the

services of the financial year 2006-07, as passed by Lok

Sabha be taken into consideration.

 

Sir, with your permission, may I say a few words on the Appropriation Bill and the expenditure planned for 2006-07? Sir, as you are aware, this Government has placed great emphasis on flagship programmes in the Bharat Nirman. We have addressed the revenue side and we think that in the next year, for the third year in succession,

gross tax revenues will be increased by about 20 per cent. That is an unprecedented run of three years. (Contd. by 1B)

TMV-MCM/1B/11.05

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (CONTD.): I know, hon. Member, Dr.Malaisamy, asked me, "Can it be done year after year?", which I answered one day, "It can't be done unless you widen the tax base". But we are going to make another effort next year to keep the momentum up, that the gross tax revenues increase by 20 per cent. At the same time, we are adhering to the fiscal discipline and we will bring the fiscal deficit down to 3.8 per cent of the GDP. Between these two numbers, the gross tax revenue and the fiscal deficit, lie Plan expenditure and non-Plan expenditure. As hon. Members are aware, non-Plan expenditure is largely committed expenditure--the interest, defence, salaries and pensions, and subsidies. It is only in Plan expenditure that we have room to prioritise our expenditure and give more money to sectors which deserve more money. I believe that adhering to the path of fiscal prudence, I have allocated large sums of money to both the flagship programmes and the Bharat Nirman. For example, in Bharat Nirman, which has six components, in 2005-06, according to the Revised Estimates, we will spend about Rs.13,907 crores. In 2006-07, according to the Budget Estimates, we propose to spend Rs.19,415 crores. There is a whopping increase of nearly 40 per cent. Likewise, in the flagship programmes, and let me repeat what these eight flagship programmes are--(1) Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, (2) Mid-Day Meal Scheme, (3) National Rural Health Mission, (4) ICDS, (5) Rural Employment which includes NREGP and SGRY, (6) Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, (7) Rajiv Gandhi Rural Drinking Water Mission, and (8) Rural Sanitation including the North-East Region component--in 2005-06, according to the Revised Estimates, we will spend approximately Rs.39,500 crores. In the next year, we propose to spend approximately Rs.55,000 crores. Thanks to the buoyancy in tax revenues, we are able to allocate larger and larger sums of money for what Parliament considers important, what Parliament considers an advance towards social justice and equity. I am happy that I have the support of the Parliament on these programmes and we are able to allocate large sums of money.

Sir, we are not deviating from the fiscal discipline. We are abiding by the FRBM Act and yet, because of widening the tax base, improving the tax administration and keeping the tax rates moderate and stable, we are able to garner resources and we are able to allocate money to the flagship programmes and Bharat Nirman. I seek the support of the House for the Appropriation Bill.

The question was proposed.

ֻ ָָ (ֻ֓ Ϥ) : ֮־֤ ֳ֯ן , ֮֯ ֯ ׾ֵ ָ ֮ פօ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮ ֌־ ֲ ִ֣Ԯ , ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ׻֋ ֛ ֮ ״ֻ ִֵ ֵ, ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮ ֻ ָ ֟ ֮ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ָ ׮ִ ֟ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮ ֮ ß֮ ֲ , ו כ ֟ , ֟ ָ, ו ָ ֟ , ִ ֟ ӡ ֮ ֌־ ָ ׮ִ ֟ , ִ כ ֻ֯ ָ֕ ִ ִ ָ֕Ӥ֕ ֵ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֕֙ ָ֕Ӥ֕ ֵ ֓և ֮ ׻֋ ׾ֿ ִ ֓և ֮ ֵ㌟ ֮ פ ֵ ֯ ֕֙ ֯׸ ֻ և , ֟ ָ ָ ֵ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮ פ֮ ִ ָ ֕ ֮ ֮ ֵ ֮֜ ׻֋ ָָ ֛ ֵֻ֓ ָ֕ , ֵ֤ ָָ ֮ ָ ֋ (1C ָ ֿ:)

GS-VK/1C/11.10

ֻ ָָ (֟) : ֮֮ߵ ֳ֯ן , ָ ָ֕ ָ, 2005 3656 , 2006 ָ 10422 ֵ ֕ 11000 ָ , ׾ֵ , ָ ָ֕ ֻ ß֮ 70 ֤ ָ֕Ӥ֕ ָ֟ ֟ ֜ , ֲ֛ , ߕֻ ֤ ־ ֜ , ָָ ִ֣Ԯ 滵 ֮֜ ׻֋ ָ -߮ פ ֻ ֵ֮ Ӥ ֲָ ֲָ ֤ 滵 ֮ 700 ֵ ׬ ֛ ָָ 650 ֵ ִ֣Ԯ 滵 ֮ ،֙ ֕ ָ ָָ ײ 50 ֵ ֮ ֻ֮ ֛ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ָ ֮ ֟ , ו ָ ߵ ӑ ׸ ֮ ׾ִ , ָ ָ , ָ ֮ ׻֋ ֕ ֮ ֻ ֛

( ֳ֯ן ߚ߮ )

֮֮ߵ ӡ ™ߵ ִ ָ ֮ ׻֋ ֛ ֲֻ և , ӡ ִ 24000 ֵ, ִ ֤ ֕ ״ֻ פ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ׮־ ߴ - ֻ - ִ ֤ ֕ ߴ ֵ ִ ָ ָ ֲֻ ִ ״ֻ ִ ׸ָ ֻ ֤õ 100 פ ָ ״ֻ, ֵԯ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ׮־ ֮֜ ϵ

֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮ ֮ ׯ֔ 20 ֻ ֱ ãָ , ֟ ֜ , ו ָ ֮ ֕ ׯ֔ 3-4 ֻ , ß֮ ָ 26 ָ ֮ ֟ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ׮־ ֮ , ָ , ִ ָ , ֟ ִ - ֵ ֮֮ߵ ӡ , ߕ ָ ֮֟ ܟ ִ , ֮ ׻֋ ֯ן ׻֋ - ֵ , ָ ִ֮֮ ִ֮ ӡ ׮־ ֟ ִ ֵ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮ ֮ ׯ֔ פ Ù ֱ כ ׾֮֯ פ ֯ ִע ֤ Ӿ , ׸ָ Ù ֱ כ, ߯, ֻ֓ Ϥ ׻֋ և օ ֮ ֤ ֆ ֙ ֮ , ֙ ֮ , ָ ֕֟ ָ ֵ ֤ ָ ָ פ ֱ ֙ pledge , ִ ֙ pledge ֮֮ߵ ӡ ָ ־ ִ ֣ ֯ןֵ ֣ , פ ֲ ֟ ָ ֜, ׻֋ ֤ ֕, ֤ ֟ ִ ֻ ֮֮ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮ ֮ ֆև ֈ ֮ ִ ߮ ֵ ָ pledge פ ֟ օ (1 ָ ָ)

SC/RG/11.15/1D

ֻ ָָ (֟) : ׯ֔ 6 ߮ ֆև ִ ָ Ӥ פ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ׮־ ֮ ֵԻֵ ־ã , ו ֮ ֣, ִ ָ ֣, ־ ֯ ӡֵֻ ָ ӟ , ӡ ־ ֲ ִõֆ ִ֮֬ ו ָ ָ ָ֮ ֕֙ - , ֕ ָ ָ ֮֟, 60 ֤ Ӿ , ָ ֬׸ , ß֮ ֚ ֤ ϟ ןֿ֟ ָ ָ ֟ , ֕ ߴָ ָ ָ, ָ֮ ֛ , ָ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮֓ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ׮־ ֕֙ ֕ ָ ß֮ ִ ֕֙ ֋ ״ֻ֟ ״ֻ֟, ֮ ׻֋ ָָ ָ ׻֋ օ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ׮־ ..(־֮֬).. ׻֋, ֯ ֟ ־ֲ ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֯ן : , ֯ ׻֋ ־ֲ , ֯ ֮ , ֻ ׻֋

ֻ ָָ : ֮֮ߵ ӡ ׮־ ־ ֕֙ ֕ ָ ֕֙ ֋ ֮ ֻ ״ֻ, ֮ -߱ ִ֮ ָ ֟ ָ ֵ֓ ֲ ֣, ׯϋ֮ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ӡ ֻ ֕֙ ֕֙ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (PONDICHERRY): Hon. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bill, 2006. I rise to support to this Bill moved by the hon. Finance Minister. If we go through the Bill, we find that the thrust has been on the development of the rural areas. In fact, it has been the policy of the Government that rural development is given the focus, and the National Common Minimum Programme also envisages this. Some of our Alliance parties have also been insisting that the real focus should be on the farmers, the rural households, education in the rural areas, taking care of health sector on the rural side, sanitation, potable drinking water, building of proper roads in the rural areas and creating adequate infrastructure in the rural areas, in the same away it is available for people in the urban areas. Sir, our hon. President has also urged the need for this; in fact, our hon. Prime Minister and our hon. Finance Minister have showed their keenness to develop the rural areas by providing urban facilities in the rural areas. That has been the focus of this Government, and it has been very well projected in the Appropriation Bill and also the General Budget which was presented by the Finance Minister.

Sir, while hearing my colleague from the other side, Shri Kripal Parmar, he has urged upon the Government not to merge the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme with the other anti-poverty programmes that have been implemented by the various State Governments. He wants that the programme, which has been continuing for sometime now, that is, the 'Food-for-Work' Programme also has to continue. The hon. Finance Minister knows pretty well about this; in fact, I had also made a complaint earlier while I was speaking on the discussion on the Ministry of Rural Development. (Continued by 1E)

1e/11.20/ks

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): Ninety per cent of the money has been provided by the Central Government. Ten per cent is the State component for the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Most of the States have been enrolling beneficiaries. There is very good response from the people, especially people living in the tribal areas, rural areas, drought-prone areas and from the people who are living below the poverty line; they are enrolling themselves in various States. It is estimated that 25-30 million people will be coming under the net and the amount which is expected to be spent on this scheme is about Rs.25,000 crores. I would like a categorical answer from the hon. Finance Minister because the hon. Prime Minister had said on several occasions while launching the programme, when the hon. Chairman of the National Advisory Council also was there in Andhra Pradesh, and the Finance Minister has also been saying in several meetings, that funds for the scheme are not a problem. I would like to know from the hon. Finance Minister whether the Government is going to give sufficient funds for implementing the scheme even in the first year. Initially, about 200 districts have been included. They have said that, thereafter, they will include other districts in a phased manner and cover all the areas within five years. There are demands from various State Governments and, so, in the next year, more States will have to be included. I would like to know whether any survey has been done to include the other districts also in various States so that the whole area can be covered in the next year. Sir, people in rural areas need safe drinking water, good education, health facilities and also sanitation. Bharat Nirman, the flagship programme, an ambitious programme that has been launched by the Finance Minister has been welcomed by the people. In the earlier period, there was a thrust in the Budget for industrial development and also developing all the urban areas. This year's Budget is totally for the poor people and the people living in the rural areas. Therefore, if you look at all the newspapers and the comments that have come after the presentation of the Budget by the Finance Minister, you will find that a positive response has come from all sections because there is a felt need to improve the living conditions of people in the rural areas and, secondly, to improve their standard of life, bringing the people living below the poverty line to above the poverty line. Only then, will we able to achieve the overall development of this country. Therefore, that has been the focus of this Government. I congratulate the Government in this regard.

About the farm credit, the hon. Finance Minister has fixed 7 per cent interest rate up to a loan of Rs.3 lakhs. He has also explained on various occasions in this House that farmers need protection. I would like to point out one thing. For giving loans to farmers, money is released by the Government to the NABARD and the cooperative institutions. Through them, farmers are getting loans for raising their crops. On more than one occasion, I have raised this issue in this august House that the farmer is given the loan, even if he gives the application at the time of the sowing season, only after the harvesting season. This is the lacuna. Whether it is through the NABARD or through cooperative institutions, farmers have to be provided the money at the time of their sowing season. There should be full support for farmers by banking institutions. (Contd. by 1f/tdb)

TDB/1F/11.25

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): I agree with the hon. Member when he said that the banks have been given the target of Rs.1,75,000 crores for giving loan to the farmers for raising crops. But, the banks have not risen up to the occasion. When a farmer goes to a bank for loan, the bank demands so many documents from him, though the guidelines are very clear in this regard. The farmer is made to go to the bank again and again. After some time, he loses interest in it and is unable to go to the bank for getting the loan. Therefore, my request to the hon. Finance Minister is when you bring a scheme, there should be a monitoring agency for it. The monitoring agency should be there at the State level and at the district level so that whenever the farmers face any problems, it can be redressed. But, the hon. Finance Minister has said on more than one occasion that he personally goes there to monitor the functioning of all the banks, as far as farmers' credit is concerned.

Sir, I find that there is one thrust area of rural housing on which the focus has been given. The Government has got various schemes for the SCs, STs and other people to provide them housing. There is a scheme for providing them permanent shelter. Under that scheme, the Government gives them Rs.25,000 for constructing a house. Then, money is also provided to the people in the urban areas under the Wambay Scheme to convert thatched roofing into pucca houses. I request the hon. Finance Minister to increase the allocation for the housing sector because, especially more than 40 per cent of the people in the rural areas in the Southern part of the country are living in thatched roofing. Therefore, I request the hon. Finance Minister to increase the allocation for the housing sector.

Sir, as far as providing health facilities to the people is concerned, the Government has got a very ambitious plan of 'Health for All'. Though the scheme has been announced, but the allocations made for it are not adequate. If we go to rural areas, we find that in the North India, there are no hospitals for an area which covers five-six hamlets. District-level hospitals are there; Also, there are hospitals at the taluka level. But, even for an area of five-six villages, which has got a large population, no hospitals are located there. My suggestion is, as the Government wants to achieve the target of 'Health for All', and when the Central Government is spending so much money in providing funds to the State Governments, the health facilities should reach the people in the rural areas. I request the hon. Finance Minister to have more focus on this area. After announcing the National Rural Health Mission, the Central Government should give more focus to it by assisting the States in opening more hospitals, whether it is a single-doctor hospital or a two-doctor hospital. So, I want that more focus should be given to this sector by creating more infrastructure in the rural areas.

Sir, as far as drinking water is concerned, there is a need to have protected drinking water in all the villages. This is a noble scheme. It was started when our leader, Shri Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister of our country. Under this Scheme, people in rural areas are getting protected drinking water. The people living in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and in desert areas are facing problem in getting protected drinking water. Late Rajivji started that scheme under five Technology Missions. But, even now, we find that people are not getting protected drinking water in villages. I am not blaming the State Governments for this; I am not blaming the Central Government for this. But, this is a national scheme in which the Centre and the States have got a joint responsibility. Sir, it is not just that the people in the rural areas are not getting protected drinking water. Even in urban areas, people are getting contaminated drinking water. The people in the urban areas are not getting safe drinking water. This situation is there due to shortage of water, or, sometimes, proper facilities are not provided for filtering water. Sir, at the time of discussion on the working of the Ministry of Rural Development, I raised this point very categorically.

(Contd. by 1g)

kgg/1g/11.30

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (contd.): The job of the Central Government is not just to provide for funds. When the State Governments are implementing the schemes of national programmes, the responsibility should be on both the Central Government and the State Governments. The Central Government should have a monitoring mechanism to see whether the schemes are being implemented properly or not. I am putting this point because there were complaints that the money sent for one scheme was not properly spent but was diverted to another scheme. There are a lot of complaints. The CAG reports are there to that effect.

Sir, the present UPA Government has given sufficient funds to the States, but even then the poverty-line, still, remains the same. Sir, we have to find out where we have faulted, where the lacuna is. I know, Sir, in the federal structure, it is very difficult for the Central Government to control the State Governments as far as financial matters are concerned. But a proper monitoring mechanism should be there; otherwise, when the Plan scheme and non-Plan scheme funds are provided by the Central Government to the State Governments under various projects and schemes, if the funds are diverted, then, the purpose for which the money is given is not met. Therefore, we cannot see the development. It applies to all the State Governments. (Interruptions) Sir, I am only speaking on the subject, but when somebody intervenes...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Do not take cognisance of the interventions. Please confine to your subject.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, the Pradhan Mantri Grameen Sadak Yojana is a very good scheme for rural roads. We found its impact in Andhra Pradesh, it has done very well. The credit goes to the earlier Government, it has done well. There is no party-line in that. It should be followed as a role-model in other States also. By that, the rural people would feel that they are getting all the facilities and amenities that are being provided by the State Government and the Central Government.

Sir, I support the Appropriation (No.3) Bill, 2006, moved by the Finance Minister and I would like the Finance Minister to see to it that the monitoring mechanism is set in place to oversee the proper functioning of the schemes so that the desired results are given to the people. With these words, I thank you for having provided me an opportunity to speak on the Bill. (Ends)

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY (ANDHRA PRADESH): Sir, thank you for permitting me to speak on this Appropriation (No.3) Bill, 2006. I am aware of the limitations or constraints now.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Also the constraint of time, two minutes!

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: Yes, Sir. Sir, during the Budget Speech also I had raised certain points. I would like to touch upon the Bharat Nirman Programme of the Government of India. Sir, under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, I appreciate the idea of constructing five lakh classrooms and inducting about 1.5 lakh teachers. As far as Mid-day Meals Scheme is concerned, we are paying a huge money by way of 2 per cent cess. I have got an answer from the hon. Minister regarding the Mid-day Meals Scheme during summer vacations. Sir, there are news reports from the States to say that they are not going to provide meals during the vacation period. The assurance given by the hon. Minister was that in the drought-affected districts, it is going to be implemented even during the summer vacation. But, surprisingly, I am told that in States like Andhra Pradesh, they are not going to provide meals, in those districts which are declared as backward districts, during summer vacations, in spite of the assurance given by the Government of India. I would like to request the hon. Minister to throw some light on this subject.

As far as the National Rural Health Mission is concerned, I have been saying right from the Consultative Committee meetings that not even one southern State is included in the National Rural Health Mission. It is a very ambitious programme and Rs.25,000 crores are going to be spent on this programme. The only reason given for non-inclusion is that they have certain parameters and by virtue of these parameters, no southern State is included under this. Are you going to penalise the performing States? What is the rationale behind this? (Contd. by 1h)

KLS/1H-`11.35

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY (CONTD): On the other hand, you have to encourage them. By non-inclusion of Southern States in the National Rural Health Mission, we are gong to pay very high price for performing at the State level.

Sir, another programme is the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme. We have about 600 districts and this programme is implemented initially for 200 districts only by merging two programmes, the Food for Work Programme and the SGR. Sir, earlier we used to have this new Food for Work for the entire State. Now it is confined to 200 districts in the country. I would like to request the Government to expand it to the entire country. Your promise through the NCMP was 'to enact a legislation immediately after coming to power'. I have a copy of the National Common Minimum Programme in my hands. In the opening sentences of the National Common Minimum Programme, though I call it as a 'national compulsion management programme', you have stated that 'the UPA Government will immediately enact an Employment Guarantee Act.' Already on a number of occasions, we have stated that one-third of your tenure is over, one-third of the districts are covered now, and you are going to achieve the required targets or set the goals by virtue of this, the Government has to explain, Sir. Another one is the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission. Major cities like Tirupati and Warangal in Andhra Pradesh are omitted whereas smaller cities are included in the programme. I have also made a Special Mention in this regard.

Now, coming to agricultural sector, Sir, farmers are depending on the vagaries of monsoon and they are subjected to all sorts of problems, right from seed to sale, seeds, fertilizers, Support Price, natural calamities, etc., after overcoming all these things, they are not getting remunerative prices. I want the Government to come out with a comprehensive programme for -- not Minimum Support Price, that should be 'minimum guarantee price' -- and to have chain of cold storages/godowns and all those things, infrastructure should be improved. We are very, very weak in post-harvest mechanism. I want that the Government should concentrate on post-harvest mechanism.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please conclude.

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: Sir, I am concluding. The other aspect is interlinking of rivers. Sir, once again, I would like to remind the Minister that your assurance through NCMP is that 'the UPA Government will make a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility of linking rivers.' Now, you have not allocated any money. I would like to know whether this programme stands good or you have dropped the idea of linking the rivers. This is another one that needs attention.

Sir, the hon. Minister promised during the Budget reply that he would take all the suggestions into consideration while replying on the Finance Bill. Regarding reduction of interest rate on crop loan, which, as of now, is 9 per cent, it should be reduced. I would like to request the hon. Minister to waive off all the taxes on tractors which are being used in the agricultural sector - any tax, whether a State Government tax or a Central Government tax -- all taxes should be waived off as far as tractors which are engaged in the agricultural sector are concerned. Finally, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Naryanasamy for complimenting the then Government in Andhra Pradesh as far as infrastructure is concerned. I would like to request the hon. Minister to look at the unit cost of IAY houses. It is now Rs.25,000/-. It was fixed long back. Now the prices of steel, cement, etc. have gone up. The unit cost is inadequate and houses are left incomplete. I would like to request him to increase the unit cost as far as IAY houses are concerned, and also increase the number of units for the rural artisans like handloom weavers, fishermen and beedi workers. Sir, I have also narrated the plight of the handloom weavers earlier. We used to give 20 per cent rebate during festivals. Now it is reduced to 10 per cent. We used to give 30 per cent subsidy on Janata Cloth but now this programme has been disbanded.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please conclude because there are other speakers also.

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: I am concluding. The other one is PDS, the Public Distribution System. There is a proposal and people are having apprehensions that you are going to reduce the quantity, and you are increasing the issue price as far as the PDS is concerned. (Contd by 1J)

-KLS-SSS-PSV/1J/11.40

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY (CONTD.): Sir, that does not sound a good idea. I would like to request the Minister to drop such an idea and there is no programme for OBCs in the entire Budget. I am unable to read a sentence as far as OBCs are concerned. I will conclude, Sir, and finally...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: In two minutes speech, you are going on saying 'finally, finally'.

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: Sir, I am in the habit of saying 'finally.' We used to get time in the courts by saying 'finally', 'last chance'. By saying like that we used to get time.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You are taking advantage of that.

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: Sir, finally, I want to compliment you for coming back to this House again on your re-election. Try to cut the non-Plan expenditure and that savings can be used for the rural sector, more particularly, for the downtrodden, women, SCs and STs and weaker sections and minorities. With these words, I conclude. Thank you Sir. (Ends)

ֵ֮ ֻ ָ (ָ֟) : ֮֮ߵ ֳ֯ן , ֮֯ Finance Appropriation Bill, 2006 ָ ֮ פ , ׻֋ ֯ ֮־֤

, ֮֟ ָָ ֲ וִָ ָ߲ ָ߲ , ָ , , ֮ ָ , ß ײֻ֕ ״ֻ, ֮ ״ֻ ٣ ִר ֜ ֲ ָ ֮ ײֻ - ֟ ֺ , ־֮֬ ֵ ֺ , ־֮֬ ֓ ֜֋ ֮֟ ִ ׾ ׻֋ ֻֿ֮ ָ , וִ ָ߲ 000 ߓ ߮ ֻ ֮ ָ ֻֿ֮ ָ֬ ָ ִ -֤ ״ֻ ָ ֮ ֻ , - ָ֬ ָ ֮ ָ ָ օ ׻֋ ֮ ֻֿ֮ և ָ֬ ָ , ָ ֻߴ ֋ ׸֓ ꮙ , ֮ פֵ ֋ ֮ ֋ ־֮֬ ָ֬ ָ ִ ֤ ִ֤ ֯ Ӆ ָ ָָ ָ ֮֋ ֮֮ , פև

֕߾ Ӭ ִ ׾֪ ֮ ֕ 1 25 ָ Ѿ ײ֮ ײֻ֕ Ѿ þã ׿ ֕ ײֻ֕ ׾֬ ֲֻ ֻ ִõ ֮ ֻ ֟ , ָ ָָ , ִ ׻֋ ֮֟ ָ ָ֟ ן ִ ֮ ֻև և ֻ 렠 18 ָ Ѿ 17 ָ Ѿ 24 ә ײֻ֕ ־֮֬ ֤֕ ֮ ֻ ֤ ֕ ִ ָ߲ ׻֋ ײֻ֕ ־֮֬ , ֤ ֟ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ׾֮֟ ָ ־֮֬ ֻ ֤ ־֮֬ , ֻ Ѿ ײֻ֕ , þã , ׿ ײֻ֕

פ ִ ֟ ֮֟ ִ ֻߴ ֛-֛ - פ, ֟, ֦, 㴲և , ִ , ֤֕ ִ ֤֕ ֻߴ ֋ ֕ ֤֕ 000 ߮ ֻ , ֻ ֤֕ ״ֻ֟ : ֤֕ ֻߴ ֋, ֵ ִ֤ ֜, ָ ֜־ ״ֻ, ָָ ֟ ֤ ֮ ״ֻ 000 ׮ ָָ ֮ ׻֋ ֤֕ ׻֋ ֻߴ ־֮֬ ߻ , ֻ֟ , ָ ֻߴ ׻֋ ӟִ֕ ָָ ә ֋, ו ִ ָָ ׻֋ ֋ ָ߲ ׻֋ ֋ (1/000 ָ ֿ:)

1K/klg/11.45

ֵ֮ ֻ ָ (֟) : , ָ ֟ ׾ֳ, ײ پ ֻ , ִ ֱ , ֮ , ׻֋ Ӥ ֟ ׾ֳ ֕ ָ߲ ׻֋ ֡ ֮֬ , ו ָ߲ ֮ Ӳ׬ֵ Ӥ ׳֕־ , -ӓָ ֮֬ ָ߲ ׻֋ ׾ֳ Ӥ ֟ , ׻֋ ׾֮֟ ׾ֳ ֆ ֣ , ֱ-֮ ײ֮, ָ ֮ , Ӥ Ӆ ׯ֔ ֻ Ӥ ־֮֬ ֵ , ֻ֟ ֋ ָ Ӥ , : ֻ

ֳ֯ן , ֕ ֮ ֤ ֺ ߕ ֮ ߕ , ו ׻֋ ָ ֛ ֟ ֮ ֮֓ ׻֋ ָ ָָ ־֮֬ ִ 겻ִ և ָָ ï כ ׸֮ ֮֬ ָ פ - ִ ִ , ִ ֲֲִֻ ӯ ֟ ֮֟ ָ֟ ָ ָ, ֜ ָ ָָ ֲֲִֻ ӯ ִ ָ ֮֯ 8 ָ פ ևԋֆև - ֻ ֮ , ֮֯ ׌ - , ו֮ ָ ֮֯ ֻ פ , - Ӥ ֋ ָ߲ ָ ֜߅ ׾֮֟ - ׸֮ ֮֬ , ֲֲִֻ ӯ , ָ ֋ ֋ ו֋

, ָ߲ ֟ , ָ߲ ׻֋ ֮ , ָ ׻֋ ָ֯ ֻ֟ , ָ ֻ ֵ ָָ ֮ ָ߲ և ָ߲ ׻֋ ֛ ֻ ָ֯ ָ ֻ ֋? ָ ָ߲ ֮ ֮ ? Ù߻ ָ ֮ ֮ , ֮ ߟ ׻֋ ָ ֋ ֋ ֵ ֋ ֣ ֮֟ ָ߲ ׻֋ ֪ ִ ׾ָ֟ ֻ ָ 9/-֋ ֟ , ־ ֜ 13/-֋ פ ָָ ֟ ָ߲ , ָ ֻ֟ ֮֟ ־ , ׻֋ ֯ , ָ

ֳ֯ן : ֯ ֌ ו֋

ֵ֮ ֻ ָ : ָ߲ ׻֋ , ׾֮֟

, ֵ ׻֋ ־֮֬ , ִ , ֤ ָ߸ ָ ׸֮ , ׸֮ ִ֮ ֟ ׻֋ 괵 ֵפ ֆ, ߙ ָ ֮ פ ֋ ϓָ ֋ ֤ ֮ß ֵ֤ օ ֮֯

, ָ ׾ֳ ֮ ֕ ֛ ӟ׸ ָ ؓ֟ , ӟ׸ ׻֋ ָ ׻ ֮֬ , ָ ׻ ֋ ֬׮ Ù ֤֟ Ӥ ָ֧ , ׻֋ ׻ ֮֬ , ׾֮֟ ָ ָ֟ ֻ ָ™ և և ׻֋ , ֕ ֕ã֮ , ֬ Ϥ , ָ֟ ֻ Ԯև և ׻֋, ֲ ֲ ֟פ ָ ֮ ־֮֬ , ָ֟ ָָ ־֮֬ ׻֋ ֻ ֋ , ָָ ӕ ׾֮֟ , ָ™ ׮ ֤֟ ָ֟ ָ֟ ן , ֕ ָ֟ ָ߲ ϕ ן ߟ , ߮ ה ֋ ֤֟ Ͼע ָ ֜ և,

ֳ֯ן : ֌ ו֋, ָ ߅

ֵ֮ ֻ ָ : ׻֋ ָ֟ ӕ ֋ ָ֟ әֻ ֌׸ ׻֋ ֤ , ֋

ֳ֯ן : ߻ִօ

ֵ֮ ֻ ָ : ״֮֙, ָ ֮ ״ֻ֮

ֳ֯ן : ֋, ׯϋ֮ ײֻ ָ We have fixed one hour.

ֵ֮ ֻ ָ : ָ, ׯϋ֮ ײֻ ־֮֬ ׮ֻ , ָ ֟

ֳ֯ן : ֋, և ֵ , ֟ ֕֙ ָ , ױ ָ ָ ...(־֮֬)

ֵ֮ ֻ ָ : ָ, Ù ֟ ֮ ָ߲ ֮ , ֮ ֮֜ , ֻ פ ֟ , פ ־֮֬ ֕ , ׻֋ ָ ֳ פ ׻֋ ϛ ֮ ֮֮ ֲ ֮ ֮֋, ֳ ֮ ֮ ß ״ֻ ָ ֻ , ֮ ״ֻ, ו ָ֬ ָ ָ֟ Ӥ ִ ֮ ֮և , 10 וֻ 21 פ ֮ 6,700 ֋ ֮ ӕ ׾֮֟ ָָ ָ֟ ִ ٣ ֵ֟ ֓և ׻֋ ֻ ֻ ׸ , ֮ ֮ ׻֋ ֕ ָָ ֮ ֤

ָ, ֯ ֳָ ֮֟ ֮֯ ָ ֮ פօ ֮־֤ (ִ֯) ָ ....

USY-AKA/1L/11.50

SHRI JESUDASU SEELAM (ANDHRA PRADESH): Hon. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I rise to support the Appropriation Bill, moved by the hon. Finance Minister. I have been closely listening to my senior friends from the other side. I would like to compliment, congratulate and thank the hon. Finance Minister. We have been hearing, for the last two years, the concerns the Government have expressed, and that is reflected in the allocations, especially, for farmers, the agricultural sector and the health sector. At the same, the flagship programmes which takes care of the basic facilities, Bharat Nirman; and the message we send through the employment generation schemes. We do keep in touch with the grassroot level workers. It is sending a very good message. I really thank him. For the last eight years, we are not hearing any of these programmes. I don't know how they can say, "This is not done, that is not done". I request them to kindly introspect what they have been doing for the last six years. And, of course, they felt the pulse of the people also.

At the same time, when I am happy and congratulating the Finance Minister, I do have certain concerns. I am really disappointed looking at the lot of talkism in some respects, but allotment is tokenism. That is the pain that I would like to share with the House and put forward, through you, Sir, to the hon. Finance Minister. For instance, I was very hopeful when I heard his statement, last year. The welfare of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is closest to my heart. But I am disappointed. I appealed to him last year also. This year, again, he says that the Government is committed to the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. I also feel very happy. But, while looking at the figures, I am amazed to see that out of the total Plan Outlay of Rs. 1,72,727.85 crores, merely 0.71 per cent, that is, Rs. 1,226 crores, is allotted for the welfare of the Scheduled Castes. This is only a token amount of 13 per cent rise over the total Budget rise of 20.4 per cent. I would have been happy if he could have increased, as he increased the Budget figures for the total Plan Outlay. Similarly, in the case of the Scheduled Tribes, it is only 0.96 per cent. It is not even one per cent. If both, the SCs and STs, are put together, the allotment is 0.51 per cent. While, the population of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, if put together, is 25 per cent. For a population of 256 per cent, in this country, you are giving a total amount of 0.5 per cent of the total Budget. I don't think this is a fair deal. I don't have much time. So, very briefly, I would mention that there is, what is called, the Special Central Assistance to the States and a Special Component Plan. It has been slashed by 10 per cent, this year. Last year, it was given Rs. 491 crores; while, this year, it has been reduced to Rs. 440 crores. Sir, you know that atrocities are committed on the Scheduled Castes day in, and day out, but the conviction is zero. Can't we think of strengthening the machinery for implementing this special Act by allocating more money? Not even a single rupee is allocated more than the last year. There is no increase. It is shameful that, in this country, six lakh people are still removing the dirt with their hands. There are six lakh safai karamcharis, who are working as scavengers. (Contd. by 1m -- VP)

VP/11.55/1M

SHRI JESUDASU SEELAM (CONTD.): But if you look at the allocation of post-matric scholarships made for their children, merely Rs. 16 crores were allotted last year; there is not even one rupee increase. Sir, what is this? What message are we sending to the scavenger community who are working in the menial job, which is stigmatised, and it is low paid? It is not a fair deal. I would like to submit this to the hon. Finance Minister. Sir, you know that the Scheduled Castes Development Finance Corporation was established to match the States efforts to give. I am happy that he has increased the share capital. But the allocation has been reduced almost by 50 per cent. Last year it was Rs. 27 crores. Now, it is Rs. 11.5 crores; it is down this year. Similarly, there are schemes for post matric scholarship, book banks, upgradation of merits for the Scheduled Tribe students. Sir, the allocation has been reduced. Earlier it was Rs. 230/- crores. Now it is reduced to Rs. 118 crores. Sir, again, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation is there. For the last three years, we have reduced it. I can understand the NDA Government slashing it down. In this deduction, we have shown that we are no better than the NDA. I am very sorry to say this, Sir. We have not even matched their figures; we have come down. This is very unfortunate. Why I am saying this is because we must also discuss the truth. It has to be corrected now, otherwise, we will not be able to implement what we are saying. It has to be done in letter and spirit.

Sir, regarding this listing done by the Finance Minister, I am thankful that he has listed hundred per cent SC/ST Schemes under Part (a) and 20 per cent allocation of some of the Ministries under Part (b). It is only a repetition of what SCP and TSP introduced by Shrimati Indira Gandhi. Sir, I would like to take two minutes on this genesis of the Scheduled Tribes Special Component Plan and Tribal Sub Plan. After the success of the Agricultural Revolution, a lot of things were told that the poorest were marginalized, the peasants were marginalized. Then came Naxalism. Naxalism was borne in 70s' in the wake of exploitation of the agricultural labourers by rich landlords after the Green Revolution. Shrimati Indira Gandhi thought that there is deprivation and to take away the feeling of deprivation, she focussed attention on Tribal Sub Plan. So, to attack this menace of Naxalism, for the first time, the Tribal Development was thought. The Integrated Tribal Development, a separate head was made. A separate officer was there and all the line Departments were reporting to him to send a message of...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please conclude now.

SHRI JESUDASU SEELAM: Sir, if you want me to sit, I will sit. But I thought I should tell the House that there is a need to rethink. Similar conditions were prevailing after the late 60s' and because of the exploitation of the labour in the wake of the Green Revolution naxalism was borne. There was a lull now because of our so-called economic reforms. I don't want to call them economic reforms. Reform is a great word. Reform is a positive word. What Raja Rama Mohan Roy did was real reform. Land reform is real reform. These are only economic policies. The economic policies, I am sorry, are tilted towards the marginalisation of the poorest in this country. That is acclaimed. If you want, kindly see how many poor have come to benefit from the so-called economic reforms. This policy has now marginalized so many sections that they are going back to Naxalism.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Seelam, you should have participated in the debate on the Budget rather than on the Appropriation Bill.

SHRI JESUDASU SEELAM: Sir, I am giving the philosophy behind the Budget. The budget makers should have taken all these into consideration. These naxalite activities are not only confined to tribal areas, they are going to the plain areas also. The non-tribals are also getting into it. So, I would submit that this listing of the hundred per cent aided or if you want to say that hundred per cent listed Departments where allocation was made and where 20 per cent allocation, though it is a repetition of SCP and TSP, if you add up the entire Plan amount in List (a), it comes to Rs. 11,896 crores.

(Continued by PK/1N)