PREVIOUS HOUR

MCM-PK/1K/3-00

00 ׻ֵ (֟) : ֬ן ׸ ִ߮ ֮ ㌟ ׻֋, ׿ֿ ֻ ݵ֮֕ 000 ֟ , ָ ֲ֕ և ָ ־֮Դ ָ , ׮ֱ ևֻ ֮֯ Ӥ ֮֯ ֮ ӳ߸ ߕ ֮ ֮ , ӓ֮ ã ָ ָ֬ , ׻֋ ֲ ֮ ״׮ִִ ֯ և ֤ ֺ ֯׸ ֮֓ ׻֋, ֲ ־ã ß ֲֻ , ֮ ֲֻ , ֛ ָ ֟ ׯ֙ ״ֻ֟ ײֻ֕, ֮ ָ, ߕͻ ָ ״ֻ ׯ֙ , ֯ -׸ֻ ֤, -׸ֻ ֮, ֲֻ ָ, ӿ ׻֋ ֲ֕ ׮י כև ߛ ӿ ָ פ-ָ-פ ֟ ֋ Ӿ , ֟ ָ ׻֋ ֲ֕ , ß ֲ ֱ , ָ ֜ ֛ ֻ ָ֤ և, , ָ פ ֲ ֜ ֵօ ֵ , ֵ, ָ ֲָ ֵ, ֛ ו֮֟ ִ֮ ֵ, ֵ, ָ ֟- ֟ ׻֋ ֲ ֮ , ָ ָ ָ ָ ֯ ֟ ֯ ㌟ ׻֋ ֺ ׻Ù ָ ٿֵֻ ׻Ù ֮ ׻֋ ֤֟ , ָ ֟׮ֳԸ , ֛ ֵֿ ָ ֕֙ ֌, דָ֤ ֮ , -ײֻ ֮ כָ ֣ ߮ ֟ , ִ 10 ָ ֟ ָ ָ ֮ ֟ , ׻֋ כָ ָߤօ ֮ ָ ֻ ֮ ֮ כָ ֻ ֟ ? ֮ ֮ ֻ ֵ ֟ , ֮ ֮ ֻ ֟ ײ׻ֵ ֟ ߟ ׯֻ֟ , ֟ ֻ֟ ֲֻ֟ ָ ß ß ֺ ß և ֮ ֟ ֮ ֲֻ֟ כָ ֻ֟ և Ùָ ֮ ֟ , ׻֋ ֵ, ָ ׻֋ օ ֮ ֮ ׻֋ ֟ , ֮ , ֮ ָ ׻֋ ֟ כָ ֻ֟ - ֛׸ ֮ ׻֋ ֟ ו ִԮ , ִԮ ִ ֵ ׻֋ ִԮ ֟ כָ ֻ֟ , ֮ ֻ֟ ֟ ֯ ㌟ , ֵ֤ ׻֋ ֕֙ ֋ ? ָ ֮ ֟ , ֮ ֟ ß ָ ֵ ֋ ӿ ״ֻ ֟-׾ ָ ָ֕ ֻ ֋ ָ֕ ׮ֱ ָ ֲָ ֮ ׿ֿ ӱÙָ ָ ӡ ֵ֮ ֋, ֋, ֕ ֻ וִ דػ ә ֋ ָ ֮ ֟ דػ ә ߅ דػ ә ֯ ֻև וִ ֲָ (1L ָ ֿ:)

GS-PB/1L/3.05

00 ׻ֵ (֟): ױָ ֣ , ֯ ֲ ֮ ־ã ׸, ו Ӿ-֟ , ־ã ֯ ־ã ׸ ֳ 滵 ״ֻ ִ֟ ָ ׾֮֫ ֣ ִֵָ ״׮ִִ ֯ և ֮ פ־ֵ ֋ ִ֣Ԯ , ֮ ׾ִָ ֮־֤

(ִ֯)

ֳ֯ן : ׻ֵ , ֯ ֯ ָ ֟ ֳ ן־ָ ߅

ֳ ן־ָ (ָ Ϥ) : ֳ֯ן , ׾֬ ִ֣Ԯ ֮ ׻֋ ֛ ֌ֆ ֻ֟ ָ ד֮ ֌ ד֮ ֮ ָ, -áֵ ßָ ָ ָ ׾֢ ӡ ֤ ֕֙ Economic Survey ֵ , ִ ָ ؓ֟ ֟և և

ֳ֯ן , ָ ָ 80 ֤, 75 ֤ ֲ֤ ָ ֬׸ , ָ ݵ ָָ , ׾ֿ ן ֮֮ ֻ , ָ ֤ פ, ָ ֤ פ ֵօ ֟ߕ ָ ֲ ܵ ָ֬ , ׮ָָ ֙ ֻ ־ ׸ , ִ ֟ և 60 ֤ ֮ ָ֯ ֟ , ו֮ ֯ ֯׸ , ֟ ֮ ֱֻ ֟ ֲ ֛ ָ ֮ ֮ ֕ ֳָ 滵 ״ֻ ֟

ֳ֯ן , ׻֋ , ֟ ׮ָָ ֜ ߕ ִ ֜ ֋ - ֤ ִ ֜ ֋, ߕֻ ִ ֜ ֋, ߕ ִ ֜ ֋, ֓և ִ ֜ ֋ ֟ , ִ ׮ָָ ר ֕ ִ , ִ ִ֮֮ ָ ֵ ֟ ֲ ֛ ֵֿ ֟ ָָ ֕ ִ ֵ ֮֨ ֻ֮ , ׻֋ ׮ִֵ , ִ֮֮ ָ ֮֜ , ֜ פ, ֟ ֮ ֵ, ֱ ֮ ֵ ߾֮-ßָ ֮ ֟ , ׻֋ ִ ׮ִֵ ֻ֮ ֟ ֲ ָ֕ ݻֻև֮ ֻ , ֲ ָ ָָ ָ ־ ֵ֮ ָָ "״׮ִִ ֯ և" ֵ , ׸ ֕ ָߤ ָ֕ ָ ָ ־ ֮ , ֮ ׻֋ , ָ֕ ãן , ֯ ֮֟ , ֮ ך (1 ָ ָ)

SC/3.10/1M

ֳ ן־ָ (֟) : ֣ ֣ ָ֕ ׮ִֵ , ׮ִֵ ׸ד֟ ֮֬ ׾֬֋ ֯ ָ֕ ãן ֮ ִ ׮֬׸ ָ ֟ ֕ , ֕ ׾׳֮ ־֕ ָ , ׾ד֡ ֕ ָ ׾֤ ӕ ־֕ ָ ָ ָ ָ ָ ֮ ֮ ֤ , ֮ ־ָ , ֱ , ָ ֮ ֮ ׿ֿ ָ ֮ ָ ןֲӬ ֋ ֟ ָ ִ֓ ָ֕ ָ ֮ ֮ ֤ , ־֕ ָ ָ ֮ ן׸ ֮ ״ֻ֟օ ״ֻ֮ ֲ ֛ ָ ֯ ׻֋ ֮ ָ ֮ ֛ ָ ָ ֟ ִֵ ָ ָ ֵ ֵ ߻ִ ֟ , ֮ ֻ ֟ ֮ ֺ ֛ ? ֺ ֲ ֛ , ֻ ָ ָ ֻ ָ , ֲ ָ ֻ ָ ׻֋ ֓֟ ֲ ֓ - ִ ָ, ׾־ֿ , ֲ֕ ֮ ֕ ֮ ֤ ãן ָָ ָߤ ִ ֵ ֣ ֕ ָ ׮֬׸ ֵ , ֵ Դָ֤֮ ֮ ֕ ָߤ ֮ ֕ - ֙ ֛ ֣ ӟ ֲ֕ , - ִ ָ, ײ֓׻ֵ ָ ֯׸ ָ ֮ ֕ ֮ ֛

(ֳ֬ (0 . . ׸֮) ߚ߮ )

, ־ Ù , Ù ָ ״ֻ֟ ָ ָ Ù, ֕ Ù - ָ ֮ פ ֋ ֮ ֋ ־ָ , ָ ִ ִ ־ָ ָ ֟ ֮, ֟ ָ֬ ָ פ ֋ ֤ ֲ ֮ , ֲ ָ֕ ־ ָ , ֲ ֮ ֕ ֮ ֵ ָ ָ ܟֵָ ֋ ִ֟ ֮ ֮ ֤ ד֟ ִ ״ֻ օ , ֕ ֲ ֛ ؓ֟ ֟ ֮ ֟֋ ֟ ָ ֟Դ֮ ָ֯ ֟ , ֟ ֮ ֱֻ , ן ׻֋ ָָ ß ֟ - ׾֢ ӡ ֮ ֕֙ פ , ֤ ߅ ֻ פ ָ ָ ֋߅ ִ ֟ ָ ֮ ָ ֟ ָ ׾־ֿ ӲӬ ׾֢ ӡ ֮ ֕֙ ֟ , ֻ ֮ ֮֬ ׸ ӟָ֕ ֲ ׸ ֋, ֲ ָ ׾ָ֓ օ ׻֋ ֵ ß ָ ״ֻօ ß ֟ , ֟ օ ׻֋ ִ ֲ ֛ ־ֿ ֟ ׮ָָ ׿ֿ

(1 ָ ֟)

MP/1N/3.15

ֳ ן־ָ (֟) : ָ ֟ ֮ ֳָ 滵 ֵ ָ ֟ ֮ ֳָ 滵 ֵ ִ ֻ, ׮֕ , ׮ִ , ֚ , ׮׿֟ ֮ ֮ ֻ ִ ָ, ָָ ׮ֵס֟ ִ , ָ ׻֋ ܟ ֮ ־ֿ , ָ ִ , ֮־ָ, ֯ ֮֟ ָ֟ ֙ ֕ ־ ֲ ֚-ָ֢ ֤ , ו֮ ׾־ֿ֟ ָ, ֲ֕ ָ, ָ ֵ , ֵ ֮֬ , ׻֋ ׾־ֿ֟֯ ֲ֕ ãן , ֮ ӕ ׮ִ , ׯ֙ ֮ , ֛ ֕ ֮ ָ , , ָ ֓ ֻ ֟ ֓ ֻ ֮ ָ ֛ ֮ ̴߮ ֮ ֛ ֮ ָ ־ ߮ ֛ ׻֋ ֕ ָ , ֱ ׮ָָ ֙ , ָ ״߮ ֤֤, ״߮ ܵ ׮ָָ ֜ , ֮ , ו , ־ ֮ ֵ ׾ׯ֮ ãן ָ ָ ֮, ָ ן , ׾ ֮ , ֛ ֮ , ֮ , ׾֬֋ և , ָ ֟ ָ ֮ , ָ ֮ ִ֮ , ӓ ָָ ֋օ ֟ ֤ ӳ߸ ֣ ָ֤ ׻֋ ׾֬ ֵ ֵ ָ ׾ָ֓ , ָ ָ Ù , ӕ , ӕ ֮ ָ ִ ֵ, ß ׮օ ׾֬֋ , ו ָ ֮ ̴߮ ׬ߟ , ֮ ֻ ָ֮ ֻ ֵ֤ - ֤ , ׮ֵԟ ָ, ֻ և , ִ ָ ֱ ֯ ׾֬֋ , ׾֬ֆ ֮ , ָ ֲ Ͽ ָ ߴ֮ ֮ , ָ ֮ ֮ ָ ֬׸ ָ ֮ ״ , ן ֤֕ , ãן ֋ ? ֮ ׸ ãן ֲ ֛ ֟ ָ ׻֋ ֮ , ֮ ך ָ֮ , ָ ꌙ , پ ꌙ ִ֮ , ֲָ ׻ ֮ public opinion ֮ , ָָ ָ ָָ ָֿ߮ ָ ־ ֻ , ֲ ֮ ָ֤֟ ָ ֟ , ֕ ֳ , ֳ ׾֮֬ ֳ , ܵ ־׬ , ָ ݵ ֤õ ֳ ֕ ֳ ֟ , ־֕ , ֛-֛ ӕ߯ן ָ֮ ָ ꌙ ....(־֮֬)....

ֵָ : ֕

ֳ ן־ָ : ָָ ֵ֤ , ׾ , פև ֛ , ָ ָ ָ֮ ֋, ָ ָ և ֮ ֋, և ָ ָָ ֮ ׾ ֤֮ ֮ , ָ ׻֋ ׮ֵ֤ ־ֿ֋ , ו֮ ׮ֵ֤ ߕ ֺ , ָ ֕ ָָ ֮ ֵօ (1 / ָ ֿ:)

ASC-KSK/3.20/1o

ֳ ן־ָ (֟) : ֕ ֲ ֛ ־ֿ ָ , ָ ֕ ָ 36 ֤ ֤ ד֟ ִ߮ ׻֋ ֮ ֲ ֤ ־ֿ ֮ ָ ֟ ָ ֓և ָ ֮֋ , ֛ ֮֋ , ִ֬ ֑ ֮֋ , ־ , ֮ ־ ֙ , priority ָ֬ ָ ֮ֆ ӲӬ ֵ ֲָָ ִ ֓և ֮ֆ ֮ ײ֮ ֮ ֤ , ָ ײ֮ ֮ ִ߮ , ׻֋ ָ ֲ ֛ ־ֿ ֮ ߅ ־ã , ָ ִֵ ןָ , ִֵ ָ֮ , ֓և ָ ֤ ֤ ָ֮ ָ פօ ֤ ֤ ָ֮ ָ ߔ ׾ ֤ ֛-֛ ָ֯ , օ ָ ׮ ָ ֆ ֮ ϳ־ ׻ֵ ֤ ϓָ-ָ ֵօ ֕ ãן , ֕ ֙ ֋ ֕ ֤ ßֻ ֤ Ùև , ߻ ׻֋ ׮ֵ ָ֕ ֤ ִ ֤ , ײ֮ ֤ ֟ ֯ ֯ ִ֋ ָ ֮ , ֓և ֣״ ֤ ־ֿ ֤ , ָ ֮ ֤ ֣״ ֣ ߕ ֕ ߕ ָ ו ָ ֻֻ֮߮ ׮ֵ ־ ו ָ ָ ָ , ֕ ֮ ֕ ָ ֵ ֣ ֮ ׾֬֋ ֮ , , ׻֋ ֲ ֛ ־ֿ ֮ ֳָ 滵 ֲ ֛ ־ֿ ָָ ׮־ ֜֋Ӆ ֣-֣ ׯ֙ ֮ פ , 2.2 ןֿ֟ , ֕ ֙ 1.9 ֵ ָ ֮ ӕ ׮ִ ֮ ָ ֟ ֮ פ ֮ פ ׾ օ ָ ׾ ָ פև ֛ , ׾֮֕ ָ ׾֢ ӡ ֲ , ָ ָָ ֋օ

֮־ָ, ֮ ןִ ֟ ִ֯ , ֮֯ ֓ օ ֲ ֓֟ ֮ ִ֟ݬ ֟ , ָ - ָ֕ ֮ ֤ ָ ֛ ִ ֟ , ָ ֕ ָ ןָ ֮ ֤ ֟ , ֻ ֮ ָ ִ֟ݬ ֕ ־ֿ ֯ ֮ ֤ ֋ ֵ֮ , ֓և ֲ ֣, ׾֬ ִ֣Ԯ , ֮ ֟ ִ֯ (ִ֯)

֮֕ן ֤ (ײָ) : ֳ֬ , ֤ ײֻ ֵ ֵ , ײֻ , ײֻ ָ ֮ ֻ ֮ , 'ִ ִ֬ ִ, ߓ ׮֤֮օ' ֮ ־֟ ֟ ֕ ֻ-֓ ֻ ־֟ ֟ ׸ ֤ և ߓ ָ ֋ ו֮ .. (ֿ: LP/1P ָ )

ASC/LP/3.25/1P

֮֕ן ֤ (֟) : ߾֮ ֟ ֕ ֻ ãן , ֕ ãן ֮֯ ֮ ֮ , ߾ , ֕ , ֣ ֛ ֕ ֤ ֮֬ ֮ ֟ ֟ ָ ӕ ֟ ӕ Ù , ִ ״ֻ ֟ ִ ״ֻ֟ , ֮ ״ֻ֟ , , ״ֻ֟ ״ֻ֟ ? ָߤ , ָߤ ָ֯ , ״ֻ֟ ״ֻ֟ ֮ , ֲ, ֲԤ ֟ ׻ֵ ל ־ֻ օ ֟ ֲ ֮ ׻֋ ֟ Ӥ ֛ ֻ ֯ ֕ ֮ , ֯ ֕ ֮ , ֲ ָ ֤ ָ ֟ ֕ ֳ ָ ֯ ו֋, ֤ ֕ օ ֕ ֮֟, ֯ פօ ֲֻ֟ ״ֻ֟ ֻ ָ ָָ , ֮ Ù ֮ ֵ֮ ו ֮ ״ֻ ָ ׻ֵ ֟ , ִ֣Ԯ ֯ ָ ӿ ֟ ӿ ֯ ֟ ו֋ ָ ӿ ӿ ӿ օ ״ֻ֟օ ָָ ָ ׻֋ ־ֿ ߕ , ׻֋ ֮ , ָ ן־ָ ל ֟ - Ӥ ֮ ֺ ָ ֤ ֮ ֺ , ָ ׻֋ ֮ ֺ ֳ֬ , ݵ ֮ ָ ֛ ֮ ֛ ָ ֛͟ , ֜ ָ ֛ ֲ ֻ ߙ ֟ ָ ֛ ӳ߸ ִֻ ײֻ ֋ և ױ , ָ և ױ ֮ ָ ִ ָ ָ ִ ֋ ִ֮ , ״ֻ ֋ ֟ ß֮ ֤ ָ֯ , Ӭ , ãן ß-ß ӳ߸ ֋߅ ֲ ãן ӳ߸ ֋ ֟ ß֮ ׮ֵ ָ ֵ ׮ֻ֮ ֛ ֮ ־ֻ ָ ָ ߕ ׮ֻ֮ ֛, ֻ ָ ָ ߕ ׮ֻ֮ ֛ ֲ ָ ֕ ָ ߕ ֻ ־ֻ ֻ ָ ֟ ׮ֻ֮ ֛օ ֟ ָ ֮ ֵ֤ , ֛ ֵ֤ , ִ֮ ָߤ , ֮ ־ָ Ӥ օ (NB/1Q ָ ֿ:)

NB/1Q/3.30

֮֕ן ֤ (֟) : ֲ ֮ ־ָ Ӥ , ֯ medicine ׮ֻ֮ ֛, ֤ؕ , ֋? ׻֋ ָ ׾ָ֓ ֟ ֤ , ִֵָ ײֻ ֋ , ִ fruits ֟ ײ , ָ֕ ָߤ , ָ ֻ , ֻ ד֯ , ִ 100 ֋ ֮ 100 ֋ ״ֻ֟ , ־ֲ ״ֻ imported , ֮ ֵ , ֟ ָ apple produce , ֟ , variety , 100 ֋ ָ֕ ״ֻ֟ , ֮ ־ ״ֻ֟ , ֮ ֮ ֛օ ָ ֮ , ֯և , , ֮ ֲ ֮ ֋, ֻ ֻ ֲ ֻ ֮֕ ֋, ָ ֤ ָ ֮ ֓ , ֮ ָ ֮ ֓ , cultivation ֮ ֓ , ״ּ ֮ ֓ , ױ ֲ , ֱ ׻֋ ӳ߸ ִֻ ӳ߸ ִֻ ׻֋ ֛օ

ֳ֬ , ָ ׻ֵ ֟ , ֟ ִ֣Ԯ ִֻ וִ֮ ֳ ֣ ֟ , ׻ֵ ֣ ֋ ... (־֮֬) ֲ ֮µ ӳ߸ ִֻ , ֟ ֳ ֣ ֟ ӳ߸ ֻ ָ ֳ ָ ֣ , ׻֋ ֮־֤ ֯ ִ֬ ײֻ ײֻ ָ ֮ ָ ײֻ ָ ׾ָ֓ , ׾ָ֓ߵ

ֳ֬ , ֟ ֕ ß֮ ִ߮ , ָ ֛-֛ ָ֮ ֟ ָ֮ ֮ ӟ ß֮, ݻ ָ ֋, ָ֮ ֟ ָ֮ ֮ ׻֋ ֲ֤ß ֮ ִ߮ ֻ ֟ ֟ ָ֮ ֋ ֮ ׻֋ , ֤ ױ ֋, ֟ , ָ֮ ֺ ֋, ָ ׾ָ֓ ֛օ

ֳ֬ , ֯ ׮ִֵ ֮ ֮և ָ , ֮ ״ֻ, ָ , ײֻ֕ ״ֻ߅ ֯ ִ֬ ָ ֮ ִ߮ ־ָ , ֮ ָ֮ - ߕ̻ ָߤ ֛ , ֤ ָߤ ֛ , ߕ ָߤ ֛ , ד֟ ׻֋ ־ã ֛

1R/AKG ָ ֿ:

-SK/AKG-YSR/3.35/1R

֮֕ן ֤ (֟) : ָ ֯ ִ ײ֓׻֋ ִ ֛ ָ֮ ִ , ױ ֲ ִֻ ֛֛ ֋օ ׻֋, ֳ֬ , ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ֤ ִֵָ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ָ ֺ ׾ָ֓ ֋ ֲ ֣ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ ֮־֤

(ִ֯)

SHRI MOINUL HASSAN (WEST BENGAL): Sir, I rise to support the Agricultural Produce (Remunerative Prices) Bill, 2006 brought by Mr. V. Narayanasamy.

At the very outset, I would like to inform this august House and the Chair that a long time has passed since the introduction of the Bill. In the meantime, in my opinion, at least two important incidents have taken place.

One -- which is an old one -- many farmers have committed suicide in different parts of the country, especially in the 31 districts which is mentioned in the Budget Speech and the Economic Survey (2006-07).

Two, the Budget of 2007-08, which was placed before the august House. I am very much eager to say that these two aspects are very much related to this Bill which was earlier brought by Mr. V. Narayanasamy.

As far as the remunerative price for the agricultural produce of the farmers is concerned, I must say that there is no parity between the ground reality and the plan-making. There are many organisations at the State level, like the Agricultural Marketing Organisation, and at the level of the Central Government. But the ground reality is this.

One picture is that farmers are not getting the remunerative price for their produce and there is distress sale. The other picture is that farmers are getting the price which is higher than the MSP. In both terms, there is no parity. Sir, I would like to quote three-four lines published in one of the Bulletins of Parliament.

"By January, 2007, average wheat price had dropped to Rs.1,589 per quintal in the Delhi Market after peaking at Rs.1,724 per quintal. It is still substantially higher than the Minimum Support Price of Rs.750 per quintal announced by the Government for the procurement which begins in April, 2007."

It is higher than the MSP. In many places, it is very much lower than the MSP. As far as the remunerative price is concerned, it is a very important thing. But we are in a position to fix it up casually.

(Contd. by VKK/1S)

-YSR/VKK/1s/3.40

SHRI MOINUL HASSAN (CONTD.): So, my first point is, we must find out a mechanism through which we must try our best to fix up the remunerative price which benefits our farmers, not casually, but in a proper way. This is the first point which I would like to raise. Sir, so far as agriculture in India is concerned, agriculture is at crossroads. Sir, agriculture is an important sector of our economy. You can see that 22 per cent of GDP comes from agriculture. Our Finance Minister aptly quoted our first Prime Minister that everything else may wait, but not agriculture. But my impression is, right from the Second or Third Five Year Plan, actually agriculture is waiting for good decisions from the policy-makers of our country.

Sir, we talked about credit to farmers. Sir, you know that the Finance Minister has already announced that fifty lakh farmers will be taken under the purview of the credit system of our country. What has he done? Availability of credit will be easier, but there is no further allocation. There is inflation, a long period of inflation. The expansion of farm credit to cover an additional fifty lakh farmers and total credit availability of Rs.225,000 crore are also welcome steps -- I welcome them -- although such figures alone are not going to prevent farmers affected by economic penury from committing suicides. This is not sufficient; this is not enough, I suppose, I am afraid, so far as credit is concerned. Fifty lakh new entities, but allocation is not sufficient. So, per capita loan availability may be reduced. It will further worsen the situation of the credit which goes to the farmers in the country. I am afraid of this situation. So, I would like to put forward my views before this august House.

Sir, another point raised is about the insurance of crop. I had relations with the banks earlier and till date also, in a little way, I have relations with them. Once upon a time, I was the Chairman of the West Bengal State Cooperative Bank. I was the Chairman for 5-6 years. So, I firmly believe that so far as insurance is concerned, our farmers are not benefited for many years. I know that in 1999-2000, the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme was introduced by the Government of India for hailstorm, flood, drought, cyclone, etc. When the crop was damaged, the main intention of that scheme was to benefit the farmers. I have gone through the scheme. I have identified four specific areas where farmers are not getting the benefit of the scheme. In this opportunity, I would like to again put forward those four identified areas. These shortcomings should be sorted out. One, unit area of insurance; two, calculation of guaranteed income; three, low indemnity level; four, delay in settlement of insurance claim. This is going on throughout the country under the scheme which was started by the Government of India in 1999-2000. Why am I talking like this? Because in the NCMP, the National Common Minimum Programme, there is a sentence regarding insurance of farmers. The sentence is like this, 'redesigning the programmes'. Sir, why redesigning? For these shortcomings, redesigning is very much necessary at this stage. (Contd. by RSS/1t)

RSS/1T/3.45

SHRI MOINUL HASSAN (CONTD.): So, I have talked about the credit issue, I have talked about the insurance issue. First of all, I have told that so far as the country is concerned, the agricultural situation is very dismal. Now, I am talking about stagnation in production. You know that there is an increase in production of rice and wheat which has been mentioned in the Economic Survey and other papers. In jute also, there is an increase in production. But, the Finance Minister, the hon. Prime Minister and everybody else is very much concerned about the stagnation or decline in the two sectors, that is oilseeds and daal production. Some time ago, Shri Ahluwaliaji has said that people used to say like this, that common people are not getting daal and roti today. Daal has become such an important commodity now. However, daal and chicken are available at the same price in the market. But, why is oil seeds and daal production stagnant? Sir, I would like to quote Mr. M.S. Swaminathan, who was the Chairman of the National Commission on Farmers. I know, and this august House also knows this fact, that this Commission has already placed its report before this House. I quote: "The single important cause for stagnation in the production of pulses is not the absence of seeds, but the lack of remunerative marketing system at the field level in dry farming areas. When remunerative and assured marketing is introduced, we can see faster progress in the production of both pulses and oil seeds." Sir, this is an important observation from this agricultural scientist's corner. So, I would like to say that we must take into account seriously so far as the question of stagnation in productivity or stagnation in production of our crops is concerned. Sir, it is very much necessary to improve the agricultural situation. You know, what type of situation is going on in the rate of growth? In the year 2005-06, in a quick estimate, there is a growth rate of 6 per cent, but the actual growth rate is 2.7 per cent, which has already been mentioned in the Economic Survey of our country, which was submitted on the 22nd of February last month. There is an observation from many corners, which is called asset reform covering. No. 1, land, livestock and bio-resources, we must reorganise this. Secondly, farmers' friendly support, services covering extension, training and knowledge connectivity credit and insurance; thirdly, assured remunerative market input and delivery system, it should be taken up immediately. Otherwise, the conditions of farmers of our country, those who constitute the major share of the population, will become bad. Our own country depends on these common people. In this regard, our motto should be:

doubling the rate of growth of irrigated area; No. 2, improving water management, rain water harvesting and water-shed development; No.3, degraded land and focussing on the soil quality; No. 4, bridging the knowledge gap through effective extension; No. 5, diversifying into high value output fruits, vegetables and flowers. Already, this issue has been taken up by my other colleagues. No. 6, Promoting animal husbandry and fisheries; No.7, improving the incentive structure and functioning of market; and No.8, re-focussing land reforms issue which is very much important in our country now. (contd. by 1u)

-RSS-TMV-KLG/1U/3.50

SHRI MOINUL HASSAN (CONTD.): It is very important for our country now. Land reform is not selling land to the tillers. It is very important and land reform is necessary throughout the country and not in a particular State.

Sir, I will not take much of the time because we have been discussing this important Bill in the last two or three sessions. There is one thing which we are now facing in the name of Special Economic Zone. It is related to the farmers. Many farmers are displaced from their farms for this purpose. This august House has enacted the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. This august House accepted the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. My friend, S.S. Ahluwaliaji, has mentioned two places in West Bengal, that is, Singur and Nandigram. I am not going into the details. I understand that it is not the proper place to discuss the subject. But I would like to say before this august House that Singur is not a Special Economic Zone at all. Singur is simply an industrial area. It is growing. No land acquisition is taking place at Nandigram. No notice has been issued for acquisition of land. I am not going into the details of Special Economic Zones either in West Bengal or in any other parts of the country. But I would like to say that I firmly believe that if the Government is going to acquire land according to the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, it is wrong. There is a signal about that. For that reason, the present status is that approval to Special Economic Zones is now stopped by the Government of India. It is absolutely correct that land acquisition is taking place under the Act of 1894. There is a Land Acquisition Act, 1894. I feel and firmly believe that we should review this Act, this obsolete Act, in respect of rehabilitation, in respect of compensation and in respect of the fertility of the land. We should review the position. We should review the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in this august House because it is a Central Act. It is a fact that there would be some displacement for the development of our country, for the industrialisation of our country and for providing more jobs to the unemployed people. But there should be proper compensation and rehabilitation. It is a fact that there is no compensation, in rupee terms, to the farmer who lost his land. I am a land-owner, a small land-owner. But I feel that no compensation is given to the land-owner in terms of rupees. It is a fact that land is required to improve the industries in our country; land is required for industrialisation; land is required for highways; land is required for irrigation; and land is required for railway extension. It is a fact. But proper compensation and rehabilitation are required and they should be incorporated into the Act. Without a comprehensive Act, we should not go forward. This is an important factor.

Lastly, I would like to say that agriculture is in a dismal condition. Everybody is talking about that. In the last Budget Session, our Finance Minister told us that it was a fact that agriculture was not in a good shape. For the last 15 or 20 minutes, I have been speaking about agriculture and small industry. They must take into account these views and do something for the farmers, for the common people. With these words I conclude. (Ends) (Followed by VK/1W)

VK/1W/3.55

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY (ANDHRA PRADESH): Sir, I rise to support the Bill with only one reservation.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: There should be no reservation.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIAN): Because Shri Narayanasamy has introduced this Bill!

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, he is playing the role of an opposition Member.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: He should do that. Why not?

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: I fully support the Bill with one reservation in regard to clause 3 (5), which says that the Headquarters of the Board should be in Pondicherry. (Interruptions). I would support the Headquarters in Pondicherry provided he becomes the Chief Minister of that State. Then we would welcome that the Board should be established in Pondicherry.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIAN): That means you want him to go from here!

He wants you to go from here.

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: The peculiar situation in our country is that neither the producer nor the consumer is happy so far as agricultural produce is concerned. The farmers are in distress; whereas the consumer is also not happy with the pricing system. Who is the beneficiary? We all know that middleman is the beneficiary. We are unable to contain or control him. We are unable to make a legislation to contain this situation. The problem lies with the pricing mechanism. The Bill intends to create a Board. The farmers are facing all the difficulties like vagaries of monsoon, high cost of production, low yield, high cost and poor quality of seeds, inadequate marketing support, ineffective agriculture extension services, etc. When the farmer takes his produce to the market, he does not get remunerative price. The whole problem lies with the pricing mechanism. To overcome this, as I suggested earlier also, involve the farmer at the highest level and assess the actual cost of production. It should not be Minimum Support Price, it should be remunerative price. Nowadays, agriculture has become non-profitable proposition. The farmers are just leaving the land and keeping it fallow. By keeping the land fallow, they are saving some money. If they invest money in agriculture, they lose some money. By keeping the land fallow, they are saving money. This is the feeling at the grass root level. I request the Minister to keep in mind that the agencies like the Food Corporation of India, when they enter the market to buy agricultural produce, more particularly paddy, they look at moisture content, they look at the colour, they look at the length and breadth ratio. Because of all these conditions, the farmer is just not bringing the produce to the FCI purchase centres. In fact, he is approaching the middleman. The middleman gives very low price for the produce which is once rejected by the FCI. So, the farmer is forced to sell his produce at a throw away price.

The other aspect is, since last year -- Shri Narayanasamy knows it because he is the mover of this Bill -- the Government of India is levying agriculture market tax. The Government is levying tax on agriculture market. Although we are not taxing agriculture produce and farmers, but we are indirectly levying tax on farmers. We should keep this in mind. Naturally, the burden would pass on to the farmers. This is another important aspect.

The other point is regarding the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme. The hon. Minister has stated in his Budget Speech that this scheme would continue in its present form. I would like to give the example of my own State, Andhra Pradesh wherein, last year, the entire money which came out of the insurance scheme, has gone to only two districts in Andhra Pradesh and out of those two districts only two constituencies got bulk of the insurance money. (Contd. by 1X)

PREVIOUS HOUR