PREVIOUS HOUR

-HMS/PSV-KS/3B/4.00

0 ִ ӛָ (֟): ֵֻ֮ Ѿ ָ , ײֻ֕ ָ ִ ٣ ־ã , ־ã פ-פ ֲָ ֻ

ָ ״֡ - ײֻ֕, ֮ ֮օ ִ ֛ ײֻ֕, ֮, ֮ ֛ ׾ ׻֋ ֕ ־ ׾ ׻֋ ָ , ֕ ׾ օ , Ѿ ָ ־ָ ?-- ײֻ֕ ָ ִ ־ָ -- Ѿ ָ ־ָ ? ָ ־ָ , ׻֋ ָ ־ָ ,

, ׌ױ֮ ־ֻ , ִ ֕ ־ֲ֤ ߅ ײֻ ӵ㌟ ־ֲ֤ ֟ և , וִ Ù ӵ㌟ ־ֲ֤ ӵ㌟ ״ֻ ׌ױ֮

, ײ֛ ָ ֓ ֻ֟ ֳ֯Ϥ և ו֮֟ ֟ ֟ , ֮ ִ֤ ײֻ֕ ׻֋ ֮ ײ֛ ־ֿ ײֻ֕ ״ֻ֟ , ֲ ִֵ ָ ײֻ֕ ־ֿ ؛ ײֻ֕ ״ֻ֟ ָ ײֻ֕ ״ֻ֟ ֻ֟ , ֻ֟ ֟ ֮ ײ֛ ־ֿ

, ײֻ ײֻ֕ ֟ և ? Ѿ ָ߲ ? Ѿ ָ߲ , ? ׻ ֟ ו֋, ߤָ ָ ֕ ָ ֻ ֋ ײֻ֕ , ֮ ѓ ָ - ָ ִ ֮ ? ֮ ֻ ֻ֟ ? , , ߮ ָ , ײֻ֕ ֻ ֛-֛ , ָ֮ Ѿ ֻ ִ ײֻ֕ ָ ֮ ֮֟ ߅ ײֻ֕ ֛-֛ ָ֮ ײֻ֕ ֲ ײֻ֕ ׾ֳ ԓָ ׬ָ ֣ , ֲ ײֻ֕ , ׻֋ ׮֙ظ ־ã , ־ã ֲ֕ ֺ ֲ ־ã ֲ֕ ֲ ֛-֛ ָָ֮, ײֻ֕ , , , ֲ ִ ָ ָ ֮֮ߵ ֣ ֮ ֟ ֮ ֮ ֮֟, ָ ֮ ֺ ֮֟ ײֻ֕ ׻֋ ֮ ֻ֮ ׻֋ ו֮ ־ֲ֤ ֟ , ָ ֻ֮

, ӡ ײָ ׯ֔ ֕ , ֟ ָ ֕ ֮ ָ ֕ , ײָ ָ Ϥ ָ ׯ֔ ֕ , ָ ֕ ײֻ֕ ãן ָ , ֲ֕ ָ, ִ ָ ׮ִ , ֕ ײ֮ օ ֲ ֣, ײֻ þ֟ , ִ֣Ԯ ӡ ֬և ֯ ײֻ ֤ ִ ֵօ ֯ ֮־֤, օ (ִ֯) (3/000 ָ )

3C/klg/4.05

֚ () : ֮־֤, ֳ֯ן , ֮֯ ׌֙ () ײֻ, 2007 ָ ֮ ֟ פօ

, ֕ ֲ ֟ ֮֟ ָ ײֻ֕ ־ֿ ֮ ֮ þ֬߮֟ ֤ ו֮ ֮ ֮և, ֮ ֵ֤ , ו ָ ֕ ãן և ײֻ֕ ֳ Ӿ, Ӿ ֟ , ײֻ֕ , ֲ ֲֻ ֲ ֮֟ ײֻ֕ ãן ? ָ ֕ פ - ә ײֻ֕ ֲֻ , Ϥ פ ֻ ߮ ָ ә ײֻ֕ ֟ ָ ִ ֟ , , -߮ פ ֬ ָ ײֻ֕ ֟ ã ? ֻ֟ ? ׮׿֟ ו֮ ֮֋ ֮և , ֮ ֻ֟ , ָ ֮ֆ ֻ ָ ֕ ָ ã ָ ׾ ֬֋ , ָ ׾ ֬ ֮

, ײֻ֕ ׾ֵ , ו ײ֮ ׾ ֮ ֲ ֮֟ ֕ ׬ӿ ײֻ֕ ָ ֮ ֻ פ׻ֵ֮֯ ָ ָ ֛ ֲ ֟ ֮ ײֻ֕ ׌֙ ָ ֮ NDA ָָ ִֵ 2003 ׌֙ ײֻ ֤ ֤ ֵ , ײֻ ֮ ֯ , ִ ִֵ-ִֵ ָ ӿ֮ ӕև ֵ֤ ָָ ײֻ ִ֬ ӿ֮ ß׾֟ ִ ܵ ӿ֮ ֋ ֋ , ָ ꌿ֮ 6 ֵ ִ ׾֪ וִָ , ׌֙ , 2003 ֕ ָָ ״֟ , ֜ ָָ ֵ ִ ׾֪ ָ וִָ , ֕ ָָ ״ֻ ׮ֳ֋, ִ ӿ֮ ֋

, ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ֮ Ӿ ײֻ֕ ֋ ־ Ӿ ֟ ߅ ־ Ӿ ײֻ֕ ֋ ֮ , 55 60 ָ ։-껛 ֕ ײֻ֕ ֋ , without electricity Ϥ ןֿ֟ 80 ןֿ֟ ֮֮ߵ ӛָ , ײָ ãן , ָӛ ãן ? ֲ ֮֟ ֛ ݵ ֲ ־ ֤ ֮ ׾֟ ™ ׮ִ ֟ , ָ 55 60 ןֿ֟ ָ ײֻ֕ ֋, ָ ׾ ֮ ? 3/ ָ

aka-kls/3d/4:10

֚ (֟) : , ֕ ִ ײֻ֕ ֲ ֟ , ֲ ֲ ֮֟ ָ ײֻ֕ Ӿ ӳ ֛ פ ֟ , ָ פ ֟ ָָ פ ֟ Ӿ ײֻ֕ և ָָ , ׮׿֟ , ױ֮ ӿ֮ , ִ ֵ 10 ןֿ֟ ָ ײֻ֕ ֮ ָ Ӿ ׾֪ ִ ֟ , , ָָ ֻ 10 ןֿ֟ , ֲ 50 ןֿ֟ ָ ײֻ֕ ֟ Ӿ ־ԕ׮ ã֮ ײֻ֕ ֟ , ֲ Ӿ ׌և ׾ֻ ָ ֮ ־ֿ , ָ և׸ , פ , ֋, ו ֮ ׻֋ ӿ֮ ִ֬ ָָ ֕ ָָ ִ ׾ ߤָ ֮ ײֻ֕ ֮ ֟ և , ׮׿֟ þ֟ ݵ

, ָ , Ù ײ֛ ָ , ִ ֵ ׌֙ 2003 ׻״֮֮ ֱ ׌֙ ײ֛ ָ ֵ ֵ֤ ߔ ָ ֮֕ן ָ 㰟 ײֻ֕ ֟ ײֻ֕ ײֻ ֱ ֟ , ו Ϥ , ׌֙ ׬ ֡ ֜ , ֣-֣ ֮ ֮ ָ ײֻ֕ ? Ӿ 60, 70 80 ןֿ֟ ָ ײֻ֕ ? , ֕ Ӿ 80 ןֿ֟ ؿ֤ ײֻ֕ ָ ֮ ָ ֮ , ײֻ֕ ײֻ ִ ו ָ ӓ ָ ײֻ֕ ߴ֟ ר , ִõ ׬ ׾ßָ

, ־ - ߸ , ו֮ ֻ֮ ׻֋ ײֻ֕ ־ֿ , ו ָ ײֻ֕ ֜ , - ִ֣ Ӥ , ֮֟ ֕ ֤ ֲ ֛ , וִ ֲ ׬ ָ ֕ , - ߸ ָָ ֵ֟ ־ֿ ײֻ֕ ו ָ ֜ , ׮׿֟ ָָ ָ ӳ߸ ׾ָ֓ , Ӥ , ׬ ֡ ֻ , ׬ ָ ֕ ׻֋, ׌֙ , ײֻ֕ ײ֛ ֟ , ֻ ֮ , ߸-߸ , ׻֋ ׾ָ֓ ֺ ('3e/sch' ָ ָ)

SCH/4.15/3E

֚ (֟): ׮׿֟ ײ֛ , ײ֛ ֳ

, ָ ײ֛ ֳ ו֮ ״ֻ֮ , ״ֻ֟ , ִ֬ ֯ן ֳ ָָ ָ ׮ִֵ ֮֋ ׮ִֵ ִ֬ ֟ ד֮ ײ֛ߕ ֵ

, ָ ӿ֮ , ײֻ֕ ָ ֲ ֮֟ ֛ ֮ ָ ײֻ֕ ֻ ָ chronic dieses և ָ ָ ־֮ ֮ և ײֻ֕ ָ ׻ ׬ָ ָߵ ӛָ ײֻ֕ - ָ , ֟ ֯ 80% ײֻ֕ ֛-֛ ִ֬ ׾׳֮ ֵ ֓֟ , և ֙ ֟ ָ , ָ ָ ׌י ײֻ և ꌿ֮ ֙ פ ֟

, ײֻ֕ ִֻ , ߙ ظ ָ , ӿ֮ ִ֬ cognisable offence ֵ֮ ֵ ׻ ִ Ù֮ Ù FIR և ׬ָ פ ֵ ִ֬ ײֻ֕ ϵ ֵ ֿ ׯ֟ ׾ ײֻ֕ ׮׿֟ ָ ײֻ֕ ָ և ׮׿֟ quality of electricity, ו ֕ , ִ ָ ֋օ ϳ־ ײֻ֕ ָ ֛ , ִ

, ן׸ ֛ ֡ Transmission Loss , ־ֿ ֕ ӿ֮ ֋ ֋ , ׮׿֟ ײֻ֕ ָ ֋

, - ֟ ֕ ײֻ֕ ֛ ֡ ׮֕ כÙ֮ , ״ֿ֮ ֮ , ֲ ֕

, ֟ Ϥ , ו֮ ׾֪ ָ ֮ ָ כÙ֮, ״ֿ֮, ֮ פ - ׮ֵ ֮և , - ׮֕ ׮ֵ ִ ֵ ָ ־ ָ֬ ָ ֋ ֯ ֮ Quality of Electricity ָ , ãן ֤ ָ֤ ֣ ״ֿ֮ , ו ֟ , ִ ׾ֿ և 3F/MCM ָ ָ

MCM-NBR/3F/4-20

֚ (֟) : ֤ ׮׿֟ ָ ִ ֲ ֛ ֮ ֮ ִ , ׮֕ ־ã ֮ ֤ ִ ײֻ֕ Ӥ ֵ օ ׮֕ ׮ֵ ד ִ ײֻ֕ ֮ ָ ׾֪ ֵ ߔ ֵօ , ׮֕ ׾ָ ׮֕ ֣-֣ ָ ־ֿ ָ ִו ׵֟ ֮ ־ֿ ֕ ָ Ϥ כÙ֮ ֮֯ ׮֕ פ ־ֿ ׮֕ ֤ ִ ֮ ָ ִ ־ֿ , ׮֕ ֤ ֛ ֡ , ָ ָ ֮ ֟ ׬ ֙߿֮ ֋ ו , ֳꌟֆ ֳ ״ֻ ֟ ֮֮ ֲ כӛ ֯և ֯ ֋ ֲ ֮ Ù ֱ ֲ ֤ ֜־ ֲ ֙߿֮ ֟ ָ ָ ״֡ פ ָ ׬ ֮ , ָ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ,

֟ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ օ , ָ ׯ֔ Ϥ וִ֮ ׌֙ -ײֻ֕ և , ׾ֿ Ϥ ֕ 10 ָ ׬ Ӿ ײֻ֕ ֵ և׸ ױ ָ ײֻ֕ ָ Ӿ ֋߅ ײָ ãן, ָӛ ãן, ֜ ãן, ָ Ϥ ãן ֲ Ϥ ãן ֲָ ֵֿ ֟ ָ ֯ ָӛ , ֲ ׬ ֻ , ֲ ׬ ײֻ֕ ֤ ־֕ ׌֙ ֲֻ ֯ ִ֬ ָָ ׯ֔ Ϥ ֣״ ָ֬ ָ ײֻ֕ ֮֯ 11 ӓ־ ֮ ϟ Ӿ ײֻ֕ ֮ ֟ ֕߾ Ӭ ׾֪ ֮ ִ֬ ϟ Ӿ ײֻ֕ , ָ ֮ ֕߾ Ӭ ׾֪ ֮ ָ ֻ ֋ ִָ ׯ פ ִ ן ֮ ־ֿ ׬ ߾Ο ִ ִ ־ֿ ֻ ֮ ֮֮ ֱ , ֮ ߓ ßָ ֵԮֵ֮ ָ ؓ֟ ־ֿ , ׬ ִֵ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ , ױ ӡ ֤ פ֮ , ָ ֯ ״ֻ֮ ׻֋ ָ ֕ ܵ ӡ ֋ , ֯ ָ ֟ ֯ ָ Ϥ ָ ׬ ֮ , ָ Ϥ ׯ֔ Ϥ , ָ 47-48 ןֿ֟ ֲ֤ ָ߲ ߓ , ָ 55 60 ןֿ֟ ָ ײֻ֕ և , ߤ ӡ ׮׿֟ ֮ ֮ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ ֮־֤ (ִ֯) (3 ָ )

-NBR-USY/3g/4.25

SHRI SYEED AZEES PASHA (ANDHRA PRADESH): Thank you Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, for having given me this opportunity. Needless to say, energy is the main key factor for any country's advancement. But what we have been seeing for the past six decades is that the condition is far from satisfaction. Though we have been putting several targets, yet we have not been able to achieve the targets. As a result, we see that in the rural areas we are not in a position to get electricity supply even for 4-6 hours. If we take the examples of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh the situation is really precarious. So, to overcome all these things, it is very much necessary to mobilise resources. As the hon. Finance Minister has so many times said that there was no paucity of funds, we can provide a good amount for this purpose. For the coming period, it seems that there is a necessity of investing a minimum of Rs. 7 lakh crores. It is only to reach a satisfactory level, not to speak of optimum level. However, we have to that have that resolution. With regard to rural electrification, under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyut Yojana, the target was to electrify 68,763 villages. But we have been able to cover only 36,000 villages. So, there are still 32,763 villages which are yet to be covered by, I think, 2007-08. Even after sixty years of Independence, there is no electricity in several rural areas. This is not a good situation for any country's progress. The fund allocation in the year 2007-08 was Rs. 3,983 crores, though the requirement was Rs. 8,500 crores.

Sir, we have an immense potentiality in the hydro-electricity. For example, in Arunachal Pradesh, nearly 50,323 MW can be produced through hydroelectric projects. But we are not fully concentrating on this. We have not been able to harness the potentiality of the hydroelectricity because of certain problems, like, the clearance from environment and forest angle, the rehabilitation and settlement of the affected people, delay on the part of State Governments in land acquisition, and so on and so forth. But, a determined effort from the Government should overcome all these hurdles and problems. In this connection, one undesirable thing to my understanding is that it seems that we are going to give blanket approval below 100 MW to all the private bidders. I think, it is not proper and desirable. When the Government says that it has no financial crunch why should it hand over the entire project to the private people? (Contd. by 3h -- VP)

PSV/VP/4.30/3H

SHRI SYED AZEEZ PASHA (CONTD.): Then, I come to my State of Andhra Pradesh. There are two gas-based stations which were approved by the Ministry. But we are seeing that they are not in a position to supply gas. Even though the State Government is ready, while preparing the infrastructure, now we are told that you go and have it through naphta. You know naphta means it will be a very costly affair. We are having a lot of gas in Krishna and Godavari Basin, then, why don't you divert that gas to these projects? What we are seeing is that they are depriving one State and are providing to other States, which is not proper. This is what I feel.

Another problem is regarding one thermal power station at Ispat near Bilaspur where the people or the peasants whose lands have been taken over are agitating for the past 8-10 months. They are asking for proper compensation for the land which was taken over by the thermal station. And, they are asking for compensation, that is, give employment to one person from one family, who has been uprooted due to this project. I have already submitted thousands of signatures to the hon. Minister of Power, Shri Shinde. But, I am sorry to say that still no proper action has been taken in this regard.

Sir, pilferage and theft, which we are seeing today, is a very chronic disease. As my learned friend just now said, compared to a common consumers, who is using 10-20 units, we are seeing that industrial houses are indulging in pilferage causing losses in crores of rupees to the State Exchequer. So, it is good that we are now proposing certain amendments in regard to punishment for the offences committed. But, here I want to just give a word of caution. In the name of punishing the persons who are indulging in pilferage -- even though we are not against taking instant action against pilferage -- we must take some sort of caution. In the name of checking pilferage, the toll should not fall on the poor consumer. I have seen so many cases and I came across so many cases where for a small mistake a huge bill of thousands of rupees is being levied upon them. Otherwise, there is a threat of sending them to jail or putting them behind bars. That is why, while taking concrete steps, I only want to insist upon the Ministry that we should not take harsh or arbitrary measures against the poor consumers who are utilising only a small part of it.

So, these are some of the points which I wanted to say. Finally, I want to say that electricity should be supplied to each and every consumer, particularly, the common man at affordable prices. So, hydroelectricity will be the main source. If we tap hydroelectric energy, definitely, we can supply electricity at affordable price of Rs. 10-12 per unit. I think that should be our target. Thank you very much. (Ends)

SHRI B.J. PANDA (ORISSA): Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. This Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2007 contains some very good features, but it also contains, at least, one seriously regressive feature, which I will point out in due course. Sir, to understand this, we must go back seven years and understand how the Bill, which we are today amending, came about. Sir, in the year 2000 this Bill was first proposed because we had almost 90 years of antiquated laws. We had the Electricity Act, 1910. (Continued by 3J)

PK/3J/4.35

SHRI B.J. PANDA (CONTD.): We had the Electricity Act of 1948 and we had a myriad number of small incremental changes that had been made in the law in the previous ten years from the year 2000. Therefore, this draft Bill in 2000 was referred to the Energy Committee. I was privileged to be a Member of that Committee. Sir, it is important to note that hundreds of hearings took place so that every stakeholder's viewpoint could be incorporated into this Bill, which then became the Act. Sir, it took a long time. The draft Electricity Bill, 2000, became the draft Electricity Bill 2001. Subsequently, it got further extended and became the draft Electricity Bill, 2003 and then it was passed as an Act in 2003. Sir, viewpoints of every possible stakeholder, from trade unions to industries, to consumers, to investors, to NGOs, to activists, were included and that is how it should be done in a democracy, because we were changing nearly a century-old law and we wanted to make our law up-to-date for the 21st Century. Sir, what is more important than the fact that so many hearings took place was that it was a bilateral effort. Sir, important Members from both sides, from the Treasury Benches and the then Opposition Benches played a very important role in developing many of these clauses. I have personally worked with the colleagues of the hon. Minister today in the Cabinet, who were then in the Opposition, in shaping some of these clauses so that they were acceptable to everybody. So, Sir, bringing about changes in this should not be taken lightly. I am not sure how much effort has gone into it. Another aspect of evolution of this Act was that the draft Bill itself went through seven or eight changes. It was listed on the website of the Ministry and many hundreds and thousands of letters and e-mails were received from all over the country, apart from all the hearings that the Committee had. Sir, thus, when the Committee endorsed this Bill which became the Act in 2003, it had every possible viewpoint. It was a bilateral effort from both sides, the Government and the Opposition Benches, and it reflected the best possible judgement of all the minds taken together. I am concerned, Sir, that, maybe enough, a similar effort has not been made this time in bringing about some of these amendments. Nevertheless, Sir, I would like to compliment the hon. Minister that many good changes have been brought about. What has been brought about, which is good, is what was discussed at the time of passage of this Bill in 2003, where due to various compromises of differences of opinions, some aspects were left behind. The hon. Minister's predecessor had pointed out that these would be subsequently taken up; I am glad to notice that some of them have been subsequently taken up. Sir, we must give credit where credit is due. One of my hon. colleagues has pointed out the role that was played by my State when, under the leadership of late Shri Biju Patnaik, the very first Electricity reforms were brought about in this country in the early 90's. There were other States also which played some pioneering role. We may have political differences with some of them, but I will not hesitate to give credit to the State of West Bengal where one of the very important changes was brought about. I remember, as a Member of the Committee, when we toured all over the country, and we took hearings in West Bengal, we were very pleasantly surprised to see that it was the first State which had pioneered cognisance of theft of electricity as an offence under the Criminal Code. This was a very vital turning point and although many of us wanted to include this in the Act in the first time, it had to be left out for various considerations. This was one of the issues where the then Minister had assured that this would be taken up in due course. I am very glad that it has been taken up. Sir, there have been some false understandings based on which theft of electricity was not made a cognisable offence in the past. As some of the hon. Members have pointed out today, it has been vastly misunderstood that theft is primarily done by the poor people. So, somehow, with a feeling of sympathy and empathy for the large number of poor people in our country, many of our hon. colleagues in the past have touched this or not touched this -- a very ginger subject -- because it might be touching the poor people but that is not the case. Apart from what you have heard from the hon. colleagues today in the House, evidence is coming out. For example, in Delhi, many NGOs have conducted some studies and clear evidence is coming out that there are more instances of theft among the affluent colonies than there are instances of theft among the poor people. (Contd. by 3K/PB)

PB/3K/4.40

SHRI B.J. PANDA (CONTD.): So, Sir, we should not at all be afraid to touch the issue of theft and treat it as it should be treated, which is theft. I am very glad that we are now making it a national law, as it used to be in the State of Bengal, that anywhere in India, electricity theft will be treated as a cognizable offence and that the Police will be authorised to investigate it. This is the way that the country can move forward, Sir, and I fully endorse this.

Sir, I have to say with regret that there is one seriously regressive bit of amendment which I would urge the hon. Minister to reconsider. Sir, this is a backtracking of the process of modernisation of our Electricity Act and laws, and this has to do with cross subsidy. Sir, I would like to take a little time to just explain what it is that I am pointing out. Sir, once again, this is a subject which has been much misunderstood. Sir, I am not against subsidy. In fact, I am for subsidy. The vast numbers of poor people in our country deserve a helping hand to get access to cheap and affordable electricity. These are the honest poor people who do not steal; these are farmers; these are the lower middle class people; these are other kinds of poor people who deserve this helping hand and we should give them subsidy as we give subsidy for those sections of our population whether it is in food, whether it is for fuel or whether it is for other areas. We give subsidies. Energy is a vital area. Sir, if we do not provide that subsidy, it has many other catastrophic problems. For example, vast numbers of our poor citizens burn wood; they cut trees illegally for their energy requirements. This has a disastrous effect on the whole, globe as a whole. So, Sir, I am not at all against subsidy. I am for subsidy. But the misunderstanding that persists is that cross subsidy is the same thing as subsidy. It is not. Sir, cross subsidy simply is that you charge higher than justifiable tariff to some sector such as industry in order to subsidise the poor people. Sir, the problem with this argument is, there is an old saying which sums this up. It is called 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'. Sir, we need to pay Paul, but we do not need to rob Peter for it. Sir, I tell you why we don't need to do it. Many times in this august House, we have discussed that because of globalisation, because of the way the world is going and the way our economy is going, our industries are not able to compete with the industries of other countries. Specifically it has been discussed that our industries are not able to compete against industries in China. We must provide a level-playing field. It is not a fact that we should treat our industries as some kind of 'parayas', which should be squeezed unnaturally, just so that we should provide subsidy to those deserving citizens of ours. Once again, I repeat, Sir, we must subsidise our deserving citizens for cheap and affordable energy, but not at the cost of any other section. Sir, just like when we provide food subsidy to our poor people, we don't force our better-off people to pay more for food. We pay it from our tax revenues. And, today, Sir, our tax revenues are very buoyant. Today, we can afford to do the right thing which is to subsidise those deserving citizens from our tax revenues, not by penalising another sector of society which is also contributing to our development. Particularly, since this would handicap us, it will handicap our country's economy, it will handicap our country's ability to generate employment, and what happens when we put cross subsidy burden on another section of society is that investments in those sectors, jobs in those sectors will get exported to countries like China. That is not the right thing. We must subsidise, but we must do it correctly and, that is why, in the Act in 2003, after hundreds of hours of discussions of every person's input, it was mandated in the Act that cross subsidy will be gradually reduced and eliminated. Sir, this is the regressive step in item 10 in this Bill today which is Section 61(g). The hon. Minister proposes the word 'elimination' to be removed. That means, the objective of removing cross subsidy gradually over a period of time is no longer there. It is a very subtle change, Sir, but it has and it will have a very long-term impact. I have just pointed out the principle of the thing. Let me point out some other defects with not eliminating cross subsidy.

(Contd. by 3l/SKC)

3l/4.45/skc

SHRI B.J. PANDA (CONTD.): Sir, the reduction of cross-subsidy is still there, elimination is removed, but what it says is, the reduction of cross-subsidy will be decided by an appropriate commission's directives. What does that mean, Sir? It means subjectivity; it means discretionary powers. That is something that we have tried to remove as we modernise our laws in this sector; we have tried to make it rule-based. We should put rules in place and not subjectivity or discretionary powers.

Sir, this, Act which was passed in 2003, took three years for many reasons. One reason is that there are a large number of very powerful lobbies that were lobbying everybody present; they were lobbying us Members of Parliament, they were lobbying the media, they were lobbying the statutory bodies, so that the wordings could be framed to suit them. And I am very happy to note that in almost all the cases those lobbies were defeated. Because of the democratic process, because of the widespread consultations, those lobbies could not get their voices into the Act. When you have subjectivity in the hands of administrators, they are susceptible to lobbying. We should not have subjectivity -- the subjectivity of deciding how much will be the reduction in cross-subsidy. Whether you would reduce by one per cent or five per cent this year will be subject to lobbying by various sources. We should not have that. I strongly urge upon the hon. Minister that we must have it rule-based and you must reinstate the principle of the position, which was widely discussed throughout the country, that not only should it be gradually reduced but it should be eliminated too. I would reiterate for the hon. Minister's understanding so that there is no doubt, that I do want subsidies to continue for our deserving poor citizens, but not through this means.

Sir, this issue has been talked about at length by many hon. colleagues and I shall not take up the House's time. There are other issues which have been taken up. I would just like to conclude by raising one issue which is not really a part of the Bill but part of the rules and some of the schemes. In the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Electrification Programme, which has been talked about quite a lot, I find that the benefits that we were expecting in our State are not really translating because of some of the norms that have been put in place. One norm that has been put in place, Sir, is that only villages with a minimum population of 300, and above, will be catered to and provided funds for this rural electrification. That may work in certain areas of the country and certain States. Ours is a widely disparate kind of a State. We have a large coastal region, we have a large interior and highly forested region, we have a hilly region, we have 25 per cent tribals, one of the largest tribal populations in the country, and we have many small hamlets which do not meet this requirement of a minimum population of 300. I would urge upon the hon. Minister to reconsider that because what will happen is, it may sound reasonable that because of economic considerations you have to have some cut off, say 300, but in reality, it will tilt the balance and the development funds may go to certain areas and not to certain other areas where we have a more scattered population. Perhaps the hon. Minister would reconsider this and instead of having a minimum of 300 people, it could perhaps be made 150.

Sir, with that, I would like to thank you to giving me this opportunity and once again, urge upon the hon. Minister to take these points into consideration. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIAN): Thank you, Mr. Panda. You made good points. Mr. K.P.K. Kumaran.

SHRI K.P.K. KUMARAN (TAMIL NADU): Mr. Vice-Chairman Sir, it is a laudable aim of the UPA Government to provide access to electricity to all areas including remote villages. They have also backed up this aim with more than Rs. 16,000 crores which is to be appreciated.

Sir, I have just one suggestion which is regarding the area of power generation. It is seen that when there is excess power generation and there is more power than the grid can handle, there are instances where the windmills and the hydel power plants are shut down but the thermal power plants keep operating. Right now, global warming is a big issue and the detrimental effect of greenhouse gases and so on has been documented. It is also a known fact that thermal power plants cause more damage to the environment than clean sources of power such as windmills and hydel power. So, our policy should be amended in such a way that whenever there is excess power generation, we make full utilisation of clean sources of power such as windmills and hydel power and if at all any power plant has to be shut down, it should be the plant that causes more damage to the environment such as the thermal power plant.

Sir, I would place this suggestion for the consideration of the hon. Minister. I support the Bill and I thank you for this opportunity. (Ends)

(Followed by 3m/hk)

NB/3M/4.50

׾ֵ֕ ָ (ָ֟) : ֮֮ߵ ֳ֬ , ׾֬ ֯ ֮ , ֮ ָ ß ֵ ָ ָ֟ ֲ ָ և ֵ ָָ ֮, ֲ Ӿ ״ֻ֮ ׻֋ ֋ ֟ ֤֕ 60 ֻ ֤ , , , ֮ ֺ ִ ֌ ֲ ֮ ֮ ׻֋ , ֲ ָ ָ ָ ײֻ֕ , ֕ ֲ ִ ֮ ֮ ׻֋ , ֲ ײֻ֕ ֟ ֲ ֓ ֜և , ײֻ֕ , ׻֋ 60 ֻ ֤֕ ֤ , ֯ ֤׻֋

, ײֻ֕ ãן ָ ֕ ֓ ֕ 40 ָ Ӿ 24 ә ײֻ֕ ״ֻ Ӿ ײֻ֕ ֲֻ֟ , ֮֟ ׾ ׻֋ ו֮ 5 ׌ֵ ־ֿ , ӓִ ֟ - ִ ׌ , ָ ֻ ׌ , ָ ׾֮ ׌ , ׌ ӓ־ ֮ ׌ ӓ ׌ֵ ֲ ָ , ֳ ן ߅ ֕ ׌ ־ֿ ָ ־֙ power deficit ָ ãן ֕ ֓ , ִ tariff ֟ , ӛ ֵ֟ ֛ ֤ subsidy , ? ׻֋ ֕ ײֻ֕ , ֕ ֕ deficit ֻ֟ ָ ָ֟ ָ և ָָ 2,200 ֋ deficit ֻ ֮ ֤օ ֕ ֱ ֋ ָ ֱ 200 ֋ ֵ , 2,200 ֋ ֮ ָ 200 ֋ ֱ ֋ , ? , ֕ ־ ֣ ָ֟ ֡ ֕ ִٟ ֮ ӟԟ ָ֟ ֳ Ӿ 24 ә without interruption ֮ ײֻ֕ 24 ә ײֻ֕ ״ֻ֟ , 3 ײֻ֕ ״ֻ֟ without interruption ײֻ֕ ֮ ִٟ ֮ 18,000 Ӿ ִٟ ֮֮ ׻֋ ߙ ֵ wire ֻ , ֲֻ֟ ֕ wire ֋, ֮ wiring ֮ ֮ 206 ֋ ֲ-Ù֮ ֮֋ ֕ ֣ ֟ ײֻ֕ interruption Transformers ֻ ֋, ֕ Ӿ ײֻ֕ ֟ ׸֤ transformers ֻ ֋ , 10 פ ֟ 10 פ Ӿ ײֻ֕ ײ֮ ֮ ߲ 75,000 ֋ transformers ֋, ߙ ֵ wire և, 200 ֤ ֲ-Ù֮ ֮֋ 15 ֋ ײֻ֕ ӳ ֋ ֮ ׯ֔ 3 ֻ ׸֟Ԯ ִٟ ֮ 24 ә ײֻ֕ ֛פ ֳָ ֌ , ָ֟ Ͽ ָ֟ և - Ӿ ׻֋ և, ׻֋ ևօ 3N/AKG ָ ֿ:

KSK/AKG/4.55/3N

׾ֵ֕ ָ (֟) : ... ׻֋ ևօ 24 ә և , Ѿ ֓ ֜, Ѿ ֳ ֮ ָ ߸ ֻ, Ѿ ִָ , , ߾ ׸ֻ '֮ ָ-ָ ' ֟ , Ѿ ֋ '֮ ָ-ָ ' ֲ և , ֳ օ ׻֋ ֲ ׸ٟ֟

ָ ֟ ׻֋ ׻י ׾ֻ ָ ָ ֟ , ׾ֻ ָ ײֻ֕ , ׻֋ ֮ ָ֟ ֳ , ֵ֟ ֵ - , ֛-֛ , ֛-֛ ӛ ִ ״ֻ ָ ׾ֵ֕ և և ֻ ... (־֮֬) ... ״֮֙, , ֯ ֤ ... (־֮֬) ... ֕߾ , ߕ ׮֋ ... (־֮֬) ...

֕߾ ㌻ (ָ™) : ָ֟ ֲ , ײֻ֕ ֕ ״ֻ , '֮ ָ-ָ ' , פ , ָ ָָ פ ™ ֕ օ ָ, ֻ , ײֻ֕ , ָ ֻ ... (־֮֬) ... ײֻ֕ ... (־֮֬) ...

׾ֵ֕ ָ : ֯ ֻ֟ ... (־֮֬) ... ֕ 24 ә ײֻ֕ ... (־֮֬) ... ֯ ׻י ֟ ֟ ו֋ ... (־֮֬) ...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Please, don't disturb him.

׾ֵ֕ ָ : ֕߾ , ֯ ӡ ה ... (־֮֬) ... ֋, ֟ ֟ ו֋ ... (־֮֬) ... ֕ և , 24 ә ָ , ֯ ... (־֮֬) ... ֻ֟ ֟ ... (־֮֬) ...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Please continue.

׾ֵ֕ ָ : ׻י ׾ֻ ָ ֵ֟ ָ ӛ , և distribution , direct connection ӛ -- ֣ ִ ֵ֟ ׾ֵ֕ և ևֻ ֮ ׾ֵ֕ և և distribution , direct connection , ׾ֵ֕ և , ֤ և ևֻ, և ևֻօ ֻ֟ ָ֟ ־֮Դ ֣ ֮ ֟ , ָ ָ֟ ׌֙ ׻֋ וֻ ׻ Ù֮ פ ֵ , ׻ Ùֱ פ ֵ , ׸ֵ֛ ִ ֮֟ ֲ ӛ ֙֋, ֳ ֻ ֻ, quality of life ֯ figure , ֕߾ ָ ӛ 40 ָ , ֕ 18 ָ ֵ ָ ֟ ߙ manipulation , ֮ ָ֟ 15 ߙ change , 5 ָ , ׻֋ ׻֋ ׻י ׾ֻ ֟ ֟ ָ ֯ ֟ , ִ , ָ , ֮ ָ ϛ ָ ߛ ֕߾ , ߛ ֟ ֯ ִ ... (־֮֬) ...

֕߾ ㌻ : ָ ֮ ײֻ֕ , ֯ ֕ã֮ ו֋ ... (־֮֬)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIAN): No, please, take your seat...(Interruptions).

ֵָ : ֕ã֮ , ß֮ פ ֋ ... (־֮֬) ...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Please, take your seat.

֕߾ ㌻ : ֬ Ϥ ֤ ײֻ֕ ... (־֮֬) ...

ֳ֬ : defend , ֯ ך ... (־֮֬) ...

֕߾ ㌻ : ־ ָ ֤ ֬ Ϥ ײֻ֕ , ... (־֮֬) ... ֕ã֮ ײֻ֕ ... (־֮֬) ... ײֻ֕ ... (־֮֬) ... '֮ ָ-ָ ' , ֕ã֮ ו֋, ֬ Ϥ ו֋ ... (־֮֬) ... ֮֟ - ... (־֮֬) ...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Please take your seats. ...(Interruptions).

׾ֵ֕ ָ : ֯ ֮ ֟ ֋ ... (־֮֬) ...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Why do you interfere? ...(Interruptions). ֕߾ , և ... (־֮֬) ... The Minister will reply. ...(Interruptions).

֕߾ ㌻ : ֕ã֮ ֬ Ϥ ו֋ ... (־֮֬) ...

ֳ֬ : , ֯ ך ... (־֮֬) ... Rajeevji, you have made your point. ֯ ך ... (־֮֬) ...

֕߾ ㌻ : ָ, , ֮ ֮֓ ֮ ֺ ... (־֮֬) ... (3 ָ ָ)

PREVIOUS HOUR