SHRI SU. THIRUNAVUKKARASAR (CONTD.): You are taking the powers of the inspectors from the States and allowing the big, private multinational companies to inspect. In this process, who is going to be benefited? Earlier the inspection fee was only Rs. 2,000, Rs. 5,000 and all that. But now, they have to pay Rs. 1,00,000 or Rs. 2,00,000 to the multinational companies. So, only the big companies are going to be benefited at the cost of the loss of revenue of the State Governments because the State Governments are opposing it. I want to know from the hon. Minister which State Government has recommended for these amendments. You convened a meeting the Labour Secretaries of State Government. Only 15 State Government Secretaries participated in the meeting and everybody opposed this. All the State Government Secretaries opposed this.
Again, about the members, I request the hon. Minister that the State Government nominated members should be more. You have to increase the strength of the members. It should be more or the number of the private agencies members should be reduced. It should be less than the State Government members. I will again request the hon. Minister to consider and accept the boilers below the capacity of 50 megawatts. Otherwise, the small manufacturers will be put into hardship.
So, Sir, I would request the hon. Minister again to refer this Bill to the Parliamentary Standing Committee so that they can consider all the facts and the amendments which you want to bring. Please, Sir, again consult all the State Governments and the Ministry of Labour also. Then, after six months or after one year, you can again bring the Bill with all the new amendments. I am saying this because in these 12 years a lot of technological developments have taken place. So, all these things can be considered by the State Governments, by the hon. MPs and with their recommendations, you can again bring in the Bill. This is my suggestion. At this stage, I am opposing this Bill and request you to refer this to the Parliamentary Standing Committee so that you can convince the State Governments also. That is more important because you are taking the powers, you are centralising the powers. You are not taking the powers from the State Government to the Central Government only; you are giving the powers to the private multinational companies. The boiler manufacturers can select the inspection agency of their own choice. How will it be beneficial? Boiler manufacturer can select his own private agency to inspect his own production in which there won't be any safety for the life and property. So, I request the hon. Minister to consider our request to refer it to the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Thank you. (Ends)
(Followed by ysr-2O)
DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (TAMIL NADU): Sir, I support this Bill. But, at the same time, we have to see how best this Bill has served through the last 13 years. The Act was originated 84 years ago. There is a story associated with it. In the British Parliament, a boiler was about to burst. So the Members of Parliament came forward to initiate this Bill to protect themselves and also Parliament.
As the hon. Minister has mentioned, in 84 years, a lot of new inventions have come. We need not have inspection for every stage of production and designing. It is a market-driven economy we are living in. When this is the position the question is whether it is necessary to have so much of inspector raj, or whether it can be reviewed. This is the main issue on which I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister.
Also, Sir, the system which we are following now by giving powers to the State Governments, to put their own inspectors and make proper inspection, is not at all satisfactory according to the hon. Minister and also according to reports. But, at the same time, the Concurrent List, Entry 37, gives the power to the State Governments. Now, the onus is on the State Governments to see whether the boilers are properly produced, properly transported from one place to another place, properly installed, and properly maintained.
No doubt, the Government of India has taken a correct decision that there should be a national-level body which can formulate rules and regulations when boilers produced in one State are taken to another State and installed there. That means individual States cannot have their own rules and regulations. They may be contradictory from one State to another State. Therefore, there should be a common law and rules and regulations which can guide these types of manufacturing and transporting one product to another place and make it useful for that particular State.
But giving it entirely into the private hands and multinationals, which are now becoming producers, is to be reviewed. First of all, we have to decide whether we are giving this as a product which is going to face competition in the market by its quality, best maintenance, and other things. Or are we going to have the same system of inspection which was in the field 84 years before by making every stage to be inspected by inspectors and once it is certified then only you can go to the next stage of production? That means we are making it a supervisory staff of that particular production unit paid by the Government. That is the thing which is happening.
I do not have the knowledge whether an aircraft which is being produced in a particular factory is inspected from design to the last level. There may be inspection at a certain level. But it cannot be at every level, so that the Government can put an inspector who is going to work there as supervisor of that particular company and certify that this particular stage is correct, therefore, you can go to the next stage.
This method is contrary to modern thinking of allowing the people to produce a quality product at an appropriate time and see that the product is having maintainability and a purchasable thing in the market. The quality is important. Let the people compete with each other and find out whether there is a boiler which was produced in a particular company which met with any accident or never met with any accident or that it is accident-proof. Let them come out and advertise this and compete in the market.
I belong to the State of Tamil Nadu which is having one-third of the total boilers. From production to distribution to installation, everything is done there. More or less, one-third of the total Indian requirement is met by our State, especially BHEL in Tiruchirapalli. It is famous internationally. It is a Public Sector Undertaking. They are maintaining their reputation. (Contd. by VKK/2P)
DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (CONTD.): But, when we allow the multinational companies to have their own private inspectors, then, we are allowing them to make the cost more costly than the one which is now available. They will charge for the private inspectors; they will charge for their own purpose; and, finally, the product will be costlier and it will not be competitive. I, therefore, feel that there should be review on this aspect.
I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to another thing regarding the judicial impact. When a Bill is brought before the Parliament, normally, we have a convention of making a statement as to what is the Financial Memorandum. In the Financial Memorandum, we used to say that there will not be any recurring expenses and that will be a minimum one. Here also, there is a mention. I hope it is a thing mentioned in 1984. It is not covering 1994; it is not covering the present cost. Sir, I will just quote that portion. It says, "The present expenditure on this office including salaries and allowances, etc. is per annum Rs.5.5 lakhs approximately. It is proposed to recruit one more Deputy Director (Technical) and one Assistant Director (Technical) to strengthen this office. The total recurring expenditure shall be about Rs.7 lakhs per annum. The extra expenditure of Rs.1.5 lakhs is proposed to be met from the fee to be collected from the Inspecting Authorities....." Now, the Inspecting Authorities' fee is also going to be transferred to private sector. Sir, I am closing the quoting and commenting upon it. Sir, now, I am quoting the next line. Then, it says, "Therefore, there will not be any extra expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India." Sir, I feel that it is not updated because it was made in 1994. Afterwards, two Pay Commissions have come forward with their reports, the salaries were increased and the staff was also increased. Now, there is a Central Board for this particular purpose. For them also, we have to incur the cost. Therefore, this is a misleading statement which is given in the Financial Memorandum.
Sir, I would like to stress upon two other aspects. The hon. Minister has come forward with a Bill, requesting the Parliament to consider punishment of a particular individual or a group of individuals -- penal punishment, that is, imprisonment. Section 25 lays down two years' imprisonment for an individual. That means, the case has to be prosecuted by a prosecutor; then, it has to be conducted before a Magistrate; and the Magistrate, if he finds the person guilty, can punish him for two years. Then, that person has to be taken to a prison. They have to feed him for two years. That prison has to look after maintenance. And, if they want to go for an appeal, then, there should be another appellate authority. For that, they have to incur the cost. If they want to go in for revision, then, it has to be looked after by the High Court; there should be a Judge for that. If they want to apply for SLP, then, they will have to pay for the Supreme Court Judge. We are not at all worrying about these matters. We are simply passing the Acts one after another and pushing the matter to the State Governments. The State Governments are not at all worried as to how they are going to incur the cost. Therefore, the final thing is, judiciary is burdened with 2.8 crore cases. Who is to bear the cost? Nobody is bearing the cost. The State Governments are not ready to incur the cost. Therefore, the hon. Chief Justice of India yesterday said in the media that nobody is worried about judiciary at all. It is also a development aspect. You have to find out that 0.002 per cent of your total cost of the Budget is incurred for judiciary. How can the judiciary be run like that? Sir, that is why, the Committee on Law and Justice has already submitted its report to the Government. When the Bill comes here, you have to come with a Financial Statement where you have to say as to how much cases you are anticipating. We can very easily find out. Even for 100 years, we can find out what is the rainfall of a particular area. We can find out for the next 100 years, what will be the rainfall. We can very easily assess the human behaviour. We can get the data as to how many cases, for example, under section 25, have been filed in the last 20 years.
(Contd. by RSS/2q)
DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (CONTD.): It may be 2 or 3. But you have to come out with a calculation. How many cases ended in conviction? That means, you have to pay the money to a particular State Government to have a particular court for that purpose. Therefore, these calculations are totally missing in the Bill introduced in this House. We have to find out how much money we are spending for the Judiciary, how much money a Nodal department is incurring for that purpose, and how much money they require for this purpose, because when they are coming forward with a legislation, they anticipate that only by regulating by this method of making a law, we can have a better society. Therefore, they have to be assessed cost-wise, how much they are going to incur financially. Then, that financial commitment has to be transferred to the authorities who are going to discharge that duty, who are going to perform that duty. Therefore, this particular aspect also has to be considered. An amendment has been given for making equal number of appointments for the purposes of representation. That is, the amendment moved by the hon. Minister is going to be No. 13 at page 10. For line 1, he has moved a substitution. Here, he is going to make equal number of appointments of persons, as mentioned in sub-section (b), for the purpose of representation. That means, the States are going to be represented in this Apex Body, a decision-making Body, which is going to make the rules. But the question is whether all the States, who are having boilers, are to be represented there. We are taking away the power from the State Government. We are giving another power of inspection to the State Government. But, at the same time, we are making the law for the entire nation, which includes the States. Therefore, the representation of the States should be equal, and all the States should be represented there. Then only that committee will have a say and they can put their own grievances before that committee, and they can formulate proper rules and regulations. Therefore, if you allow the private persons to dominate there, then the multinational companies and their representatives will be dominating there, and they will find out the soft portion to have the escape route. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Minister will look after these matters, and at the time when the rules are made, he will make proper arrangement for that purpose. Thank you very much. (Ends)
SHRI TAPAN KUMAR SEN (WEST BENGAL): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity. Now, the Bill seeks to make certain structural changes in the system of inspection of boilers being manufactured and deployed in various segments of industries, vis-a-vis, the role of the State and the Centre. I think, this is one of the major objectives of this Bill. The second objective is, it also seeks to introduce by changing the structure of mechanism, the private entities in the inspection mechanism, in the name of third party inspection and competent persons and so on and so forth. Thirdly, it also proposes to introduce a system of compulsory energy audit. I understood that these are the three basic components of the Bill that have been placed here. Now, I very much appreciate the point raised by the hon. Minister while introducing the Bill that this Act is of 1923. In between, in the industrial scenario, a lot of changes are taking place, and so, it needs to be changed. Definitely, these changes are welcome provided that they are congenial to the basic purpose of the original Boilers Act, which is meant to ensure safety at the work place from the prospect or possibility of explosion, and definitely, many technical points are involved in that.
(contd. by 2r)
SHRI TAPAN KUMAR SEN (CONTD): .....and to ensure safety, the kind of preventive inspection that is crucial, how can that be best utilised. To ensure safety at workplaces, to prevent explosion, I think, that should be best done where the boilers are placed, the systems of preventive inspections are located in and around and the authority is nearby, that is the place of the operation of the boiler where it takes place. I think the amendment which is proposed to be made in this Bill for achieving certain things does not serve that particular purpose. Sir, changes are welcome if those changes are consistent with the basic objectives. I understand that the Boilers (Amendment) Bill that is placed here is not consistent with the basic objectives keeping in view the manner in which it has built up the arrangement for making changes in the existing Boilers Act.
Now, the Bill seeks to transfer the substantive power and authority from the State Boiler Inspectorates to the Central Government, particularly to the Central Boilers Board, and, more specifically, to the Technical Advisor appointed by the Central Government.
The boiler is meant for safety at the concerned workplace. That is, basically, the responsibility of the State Government. The Central Government, in the matter of boiler inspections, rendering the State Boiler Inspectorates virtually redundant, can in no way help in achieving the quality of inspection. Rather, more appropriately, the preventive inspection will introduce a peculiar dichotomy in the system. I request the hon. Minister to appreciate that introducing a peculiar dichotomy in the entire system would indulge in lack of accountability and mutual blend between the States and the Centre, and that would be a dangerous proposition in ensuring safety at the concerned workplaces. That is the basic objective of the Act. It is surprising that despite objections being made by a number of State Governments--these are all matters of record--I understand that six, seven State Governments, particularly where the boiler population is fairly high, they deposed before the Standing Committee in 1994; they had made scores of representations and objected to this approach in the Bill and requested for a change-- the same approach of transferring the authority, a kind of centralisation of inspection power, unfortunately, is still very much prevailing in the Bill.
The Bill proposes to introduce a number of new provisions for a more rigorous inspection of boilers. Yes, this part is quite welcome. While the proposed rigorousness is quite welcome, these provisions along with the transfer of powers to Central entity and the introduction of a third party inspection--another problem--will impute complications in the inspection system, making it difficult and hazardous for the industry as well as for the agency to comply and thereby making the inspection more punitive, rather than preventive. I request you to concentrate on this aspect. We are making it rigorous; it is welcome. We are providing it for inspection right from the manufacturing stage, and particularly in a product like boiler, which is crucial, important, that once the boiler is made and put in use, and if, at the manufacturing stage, there are certain difficulties, definitely those are to be taken care of and prevented well in advance. So, from the manufacturing stage, the need of having an inspection is welcome. But along with the rigorousness, their implementation, the process of mechanism to implement the rigorousness in the inspection system, the kind of dichotomy along with a third party inspection, will create serious complications and inspection will become punitive and hazardous for the industry which is facing inspection, and also for the agency which is responsible for inspection and also for giving an okay, and thereby the boiler may be put in operation. The whole process will invite unnecessary complications making it much more difficult for the purpose of achieving the objective. So, there may be two possibilities. Under the new dispensation, what can happen? Either the inspection of small boilers up to 100 megawatts, which are much more in number compared to bigger boilers, will be neglected or the new provisions being handled by the changed power structure will make the situation difficult, hazardous for the small entities to comply with, function and operate. (Contd. by TMV/2S)
SHRI TAPAN KUMAR SEN (CONTD.): In this background, introduction of private entities, again let me reiterate, will also give vent to the possibility of compromise in the quality of inspection.
(THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA) IN THE CHAIR.)
You will agree that bigger boilers, above 100 megawatts, have system of in-built preventive inspection. My friend, Mr. Natchiappan, has referred to the BHEL in Tiruchirappally. They produce boilers and turbines. From A-I Phase the whole production process has got an automatic in-built mechanism for inspection at every stage and for a product like boilers that is very crucial and important. So, for the bigger boilers, and wherever these bigger boilers are produced, they are being exported--our country is now exporting boilers as a part of power plant equipment and machinery--have a system. The problem does not remain much in that area. The problem remains at the micro-level where a number of boilers are there. Now, the industrial activities are increasing and their number is also increasing. Now, we do not require a licence to set up an industry. So, even scrutiny has become very difficult. In such a case, these small boilers are accident prone. Inspection is much less on other aspects. In such a situation, if these are neglected, I think, that will create more problem for the people who are working with boilers. So, in these areas to avoid that kind of a system, I think, introducing this kind of rigorousness will create more problem. So, in the case of boilers that are being used in small and medium establishments I suggest that, particularly, inspection of this area should continue to remain in the absolute domain of State Boiler Inspectorates, both in terms of responsibility and authority without any dilution. It is a must for small boilers whose number is more to ensure safety. The Bill was drafted in the veil presumption....
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA): Are you finishing now?
SHRI TAPAN KUMAR SEN: I am finishing now. Please give me some more time.
The Bill was drafted in the veil presumption of the inadequacies in the State Inspectorates to meet the needs of changing technology and business. Now this insistence on third party inspection is sought to be built up precisely with that logic. Sir, the presumption has been questioned by a number of State Governments which are matters on record. Moreover, the changing technology warrants updating the skills and competence of the functional State level inspectors and not throwing the baby with the bath-water. In the era of changing technology the inspectorates are there. Upgrading their skills and infrastructure is the need of the hour. Just for making that infrastructure redundant, because technology is changing, the private third party inspection comes in the picture. That can't be the logic.
I would like to bring to your notice the concern expressed by the Standing Committee in its 13th Report presented in this House on 29th March, 1995 on the sweeping powers sought to be assigned to a single technical advisor in the proposed new section 4A. Instead of concentrating the powers on an individual, it should have been conferred on the Central Boilers Act. All the States should be represented in the Central Boilers Board. The hon. Minister while introducing the Bill agreed to it. I would not like to go into the details.
The Bill also proposes a provision of energy audit. My suggestion is that the energy audit is the subject of Energy Conservation Act, 2001. That is the right place. That Act is also operative. In the Boilers Act also you are putting the provisions of the energy audit. Again, it will create the problem of dichotomy, one Act interfering with the domain of the other and rather creating problem for implementation. I think, it should also be changed.
At the end, I would like to say that the Bill was introduced in 1994. It was taken up for discussion in 2000 with a host of official amendments and, I think, with almost equal number of unofficial amendments. Now, again, in 2007, that has been taken up. (Contd. by VK/2T)
SHRI TAPAN KUMAR SEN (CONTD): It would have been better if whatever problems cropped up between 2000 and 2007 were sought to be addressed. To my information, in 2000, the character of official amendment that had been moved, remains almost the same, with some change here and there, in 2007 also. What does it mean? From 2000 to 2007, it was just kept like that. This defines the kind of urgency. I do not know what should you do. I have moved a number of amendments because official amendments are not sufficient to take care of the concerns just expressed by me. I request you to please accept my amendments. I would rather make this request more seriously, as my friend from the other side has requested. This is not a political issue. This is not a controversial issue. This is a technical issue relating to efficiency of the system. This system is of crucial importance because it involves lives, safety of lives and the number is increasing. Instead of taking it up in that fashion, in this official and unofficial amendment-ridden form, I request you to please reconsider it and have further consultations with the State Governments. I think, it is possible to arrive at a consensus on these areas. Let us do it. Let us make a serious exercise and bring a revised Bill. After its introduction in 1994, it was taken up in 2000 and then again in 2007 which shows the character of urgency of this thing. If it could wait for so long, it can wait for some more time. Please redraft it and place it here. At the end, I seriously object to the official amendment No. 14. Others can be accommodated here and there. But official amendment no. 14 in clause 32 - sweeping powers empowering State Governments -- here also more powers are being given to State Governments -- but we do not like to empower any Government in the way that the State Government will be empowered to exempt any boiler from the purview of the Act altogether. That kind of blanket power should not be assigned to any Government, whether it is the State Government or the Central Government. I have specific objection to that particular amendment. Thank you.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA): Shri M.V. Mysura Reddy; you have three minutes.
DR. V. MAITREYAN: Sir, Shri Malaisamy has to speak.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: He will be called.
DR. V. MAITREYAN: The order has been changed. That is why I am objecting to it.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA): He has just entered. He can speak after Shri Mysura Reddy.
SHRI M.V. MYSURA REDDY (ANDHRA PRADESH): Sir, I am of the view that this is a piecemeal Bill. If you see the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it speaks volumes. I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister that in Europe, in developed countries like the USA, boilers are only designed. There is no question of manufacturing boilers in those countries. But in our country, in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and some other places, boilers of 500 megawatt capacity were designed and manufactured and exported to other countries without any complaints. But, time and again, they are coming up with fresh regulations. Basing on the technology and designs, they are issuing regulations. But in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it is written that many of the provisions of the present Act have become outdated. (Contd. by 2U)
SHRI M.V. MYSURA REDDY (ANDHRA PRADESH): Sir, I can say one thing, with all humbleness at my command, that the provisions are not outdated, but the Bill is outdated. The second thing which is being stated is about the discretionary power used by Inspectors of Boilers of the States to allow deviations raised in inter-State disputes, and the fact that the boilers manufactured in one State are not registered in the user State, as a result of which the users suffer. This is not true. It is learnt that in Andhra Pradesh, 3,000 boilers were purchased from Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. But there is no case pending for want of registration, or, there is no complaint that has been made. In fact, the Tamil Nadu Manufacturers' Association gave a certificate stating, "Under the existing set up of the State Boilers' Directorate, we are getting their timely services for inspection of our boilers at a very nominal inspection fee and even in odd hours and on emergencies." That is why I am saying that whatever has been stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons is not true.
Regarding post of Technical Advisor, it appears to me that this Bill was brought for the sake of Technical Advisor himself. When I talk about the man, who was behind this Bill -- of course, I do not know whether he is retired or he is there, whether he is inside or outside the Board -- but he wanted some legal sanctity for the post of Technical Advisor. For this purpose, this Bill has been brought. It is nothing more than that. Why I am saying this is that in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, they have stated that the Committee had recommended for the post of Technical Advisor. I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee; in para 8.8, they have said, "The Committee is equally concerned over the sweeping powers proposed to be conferred on a single Technical Advisor under the suggested new Section 4 (A). Instead of concentrating the powers on a single individual, it would appear better to entrust such powers to the Central Boilers' Board." This is the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. But they have not included the recommendation of the Committee. Without including that, the Bill has been brought before the House.
Regarding Members appointed to the Board, it states, members, other than those nominated, shall not exceed 20 to represent various agencies; like, the Central Bureau of Indian Standards, Boiler and Boiler Component Manufacturers, National Laboratories, Engineering Consultancy Agencies, User of Boilers. Sir, we have also proposed some amendments. Now, this is a decision-making body. But if some persons are nominated from private agencies, this will not be in the interest of the general public. So, we suggest that they should, at least, not have the voting power or a right in decision-making. We can take the views of these people, but they should not be given the voting rights to these people in decision-making. That is our suggestion.
Regarding competent person and inspecting authority, the doors are open to the private agencies. Lloyds, Bureau Vereitas, TUV, Mittal are all the private agencies, and we are giving them the permission.
(Continued by 2W)
SHRI M. V. MYSURA REDDY (CONTD.): Sir, regarding their competence to issue this certificate, I wish to bring one instance to the notice of the House. One agency, Messrs Mittal, had given a certificate and in that certificate they had mentioned, "The manufacturer is solely responsible for thorough inspection and quality of the material, i.e., chemical composition, soundness, surface conditions, dimensions". It is a multi-national company which has given such a certificate.
Sir, when they have not taken any responsibility for quality and say that only the manufacturer is responsible for it, then, why should we have the inspecting agency issuing this type of a certificate? There is no use giving such huge power to these people. It is just like when there is already free food being served in a choultry, an Aiyangar comes and makes a recommendation for free food to be given to somebody. There is no need for such a recommendation. So, when the manufacturer is already responsible for the quality, what is the need for such a certificate from a private agency? We are opening the doors to such people by bringing in such an amendment. I would request the hon. Minister to consider it seriously.
Sir, before bringing forward this Bill the States were not consulted. There were official and non-official amendments. As my colleague, Shri Tapan Sen, has mentioned, the Bill was introduced in 1994. It was again brought here. It went to the Standing Committee also. The Standing Committee's recommendations have not been reflected in the Bill. There are a lot of lacunae there. Sir, it is a State Subject. Taking away the powers of the State is not advisable. That is why we are requesting that this Bill may again be sent to the Standing Committee or a Select Committee to see to it that the Bill is brought forward in a proper shape and form for the betterment of the people. Through this Bill, we are throwing the entire regulatory mechanism into the private hands. If that is not possible, we would like to propose certain amendments and it is requested that those amendments may please be carried on in the Bill. That is the opinion of my party. Thank you, Sir.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA): Dr. Malaisamyji. Don't be impatient. You have full five minutes at your disposal.
DR. K. MALAISAMY (TAMIL NADU): Sir, it is my sheer luck that you happen to be in the Chair whenever I get an opportunity to speak in this House. I feel at home and more comfortable!
Sir, I speak on behalf of the AIADMK party on this Bill. But I am very much inclined to speak in Tamil, my mother tongue, which is a polished, sweet, unique, ancient and a classic language. The Chair may understand that the entire team of AIADMK and all Tamil-speaking members wanted to raise an issue and that is that this House is handicapped for want of a Tamil Interpreter. In spite of the fact that we have raised the issue a number of times, you are not able to get it done.
SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK: Sir, we had also asked for an Interpreter in...(Interruptions)...
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA): Your turn would also come. (Interruptions) You will be given full opportunity. (Interruptions) (Followed by 2x/kgg)
DR. K. MALAISAMY: Sir, the House is handicapped for want of an interpreter, not just for today, but for eleven months. The post has become vacant eleven months back and we had been trying our level best to fill that up but in vain. The authorities concerned are saying that they have advertised for the post. I would like to know in which newspaper you have advertised, when you have advertised, whether you have exploited the potential area. We are again told that this matter has been referred to the General Purposes Committee. This is a permanent post and I would like to know the reasons why it is referred to the General Purposes Committee. Only in cases of fresh sanction does it go to the General Purposes Committee. I am further told that even the advertisement is only for a part-time interpreter. Who will come for a part-time job? This is the background under which I would like to speak in Tamil. I want to put it on record.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: No, it cannot come on record, that is what I am telling you. Please listen to me. The rules say......
DR. K. MALAISAMY: I am trying to bring to the notice of the House......
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Sir, give me a chance to explain to you the problem. (Interruptions)
DR. V. MAITREYAN: Sir, this is a hot boiling issue! (Interruptions)
DR. K. MALAISAMY: Whatever the authorities are trying to say......
SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: It is not just Tamil interpreter; even a Telugu interpreter is required to be filled up. (Interruptions)
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA): I do not have extraordinary powers to listen to too many people at a time. Malaisamyji, please listen to me. You cannot raise an issue of the secretariat in the House. Number one. (Interruptions)
DR. V. MAITREYAN: We are handicapped because our people are not able to speak in Tamil! (Interruptions)
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Will you bear with me? (Interruptions) I have full sympathy. I can understand. (Interruptions) I am anguished; I do not know whether it is happening to you from Tamil Nadu or to others also; the point is, we have to follow the rules. You can go to the Chairman and talk to him. But we cannot raise this point in the House. I do not want...... I said, you go to the Chairman and talk to him. (Interruptions) I am drawing your attention to the rules. I am not above rules nor are you above rules. (Interruptions)
DR. K. MALAISAMY: Mr. Vice-Chariman, Sir, do you want us to come to the well of the House and start shouting? (Interruptions) We are a disciplined force. (Interruptions)
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: No, I do not want you to do that. Definitely not. I also know that you will never do it. (Interruptions)
DR. K. MALAISAMY: Sir, you are a well-informed Vice-Chairman. We thought, by bringing this to your notice, you will bring this, in turn, to the notice of the particular forum. That is how we feel.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA): I said I have full sympathy with you. I want to support you fully; but there is a procedure which you have to follow. (Interruptions) Please continue with your main speech on the Boiler Bill. That is also boiling.
DR. K. MALAISAMY: Sir, unless this is done within a time-frame, as quickly as possible and as early as possible, something is going to happen in the House. We are pretty serious about it.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: No threatening, I will report this to Mr. Chairman also. Do not worry about it. (Interruptions)
DR. K. MALAISAMY: We are so many people speaking Tamil and we are totally handicapped to speak in Tamil. Now, coming to the point,
(The Hon. Member spoke in Tamil)
(Followed by kls/2y)
DR. K. MALAISAMY (CONTD): (Hon. Member spoke in Tamil.)
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Just a minute. I want to help you. ...(Interruptions)... It is neither being recorded nor I can know what you are talking. ...(Interruptions)...
DR. V. MAITREYAN: It does not matter. ...(Interruptions)... At least, it will go unrecorded. ...(Interruptions)...
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Then you can speak for five minutes. ...(Interruptions)... What can I do? ...(Interruptions)... It is not being recorded, I am telling you.
DR. K. MALAISAMY: Hon. Member spoke in Tamil.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: I hope you are using only parliamentary language.
DR. K. MALAISAMY: (Hon. Member spoke in Tamil.)
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA): Malaisamyji, have you given notice to speak in Tamil?. ...(Interruptions)...The rule says ...(Interruptions)...
DR. V. MAITREYAN: You cannot talk of rule like this...(Interruptions)... You should understand our anguish. ...(Interruptions)...
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Do not threaten. ...(Interruptions)... I am only trying to help you...(Interruptions)... You are only threatening and threatening. ...(Interruptions)... Let me explain to you. ...(Interruptions)...
DR. V. MAITREYAN: It is our right to speak in Tamil. ...(Interruptions)...
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: I want to save your right. ...(Interruptions)... Please listen to me first. ...(Interruptions)... I am on my legs. What I am trying to say is that if you had given notice one hour before, we would have made some arrangements from Lok Sabha or somewhere else. ...(Interruptions)...
DR. V. MAITREYAN: In eleven months they could not make any arrangement. In one hour, how do you expect this? ...(Interruptions)...
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: I am only telling you that at least in future you give notice. After that it is our problem, the Secretariat's problem to arrange it. ...(Interruptions)...Forget about it whether we have it on the rolls or not. ...(Interruptions)... I am trying to help you. ...(Interruptions)...
DR. V. MAITREYAN: The hon. Member will speak after one hour. He will give notice to the Chairman now. ...(Interruptions)... He will do it after one hour.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Please do it. ...(Interruptions)... There is another Bill coming. ...(Interruptions)... I agree but this Bill will not continue beyond an hour. So, on any other Bill you better speak and give prior notice. ...(Interruptions)... We will try to help you in this regard. I am trying to help you and you do not want to be helped. What else can I do? Go ahead. Now you use whatever language you want but I am telling you that it is not being recorded. I am not able to understand anything; and, I hope you are using the parliamentary language. ...(Interruptions)...
DR. V. MAITREYAN: There is nothing unparliamentary in Tamil. Whatever unparliamentary happens, it is only in English. ...(Interruptions)...
DR. K. MALAISAMY: Let me have the maximum satisfaction that I could speak in Tamil, which I wanted to. ...(Interruptions)...
DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: At least, it can be recorded audio and video. ...(Interruptions)... Translation can be done when it is over. ...(Interruptions)...
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA): Have you completed, Malaisamyji?
DR. V. MAITREYAN : He has not yet started, Sir. ...(Interruptions)...
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: How many times do you want to start? ...(Interruptions)... No interruptions, please. ...(Interruptions)... I am not going to listen. Let him complete.
DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: Tomorrow it can be translated into Tamil.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: About tomorrow we will talk tomorrow. Let us talk about that is going on right now. Malaisamyji, address the Chair. ...(Interruptions)... (Followed by 2Z)
DR. K. MALAISAMY: To concede...
DR V. MAITREYAN: Sir, when we speak in English, the words come from my mouth. When we speak in Tamil, the words come from my heart.
DR. K. MALAISAMY: Sir, to concede the request of the hon. Chairperson and the non-Tamil speaking Members, I am inclined to make my presentation in English.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA): Thank you.
DR. K. MALAISAMY: Sir, you have to be extra considerate for five minutes. I will speak as quickly as possible but at the same time, interference here and there should be deducted from my time.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay, I request all of you not to interrupt for five minutes. We start at 2.55 p.m.
DR. K. MALAISAMY: Coming to the Bill, Sir, this is an age-old Bill as introduced in the Rajya Sabha as early as on 13.5.1994. Then, it was rightly referred to a Committee on 19.5.94. You are the Chairman of a Committee and I am also in the Committee. I know what the Parliamentary Committee is doing, in fact, how you go into the intricacy of a problem, how you read in between lines and all; every detail is gone through and ultimately a report comes. In this particular case, it was rightly referred to the Parliamentary Committee and the Parliamentary Committee had 16 sittings and they listened to all witnesses and they examined all the officials from the State Government and the Central Government and with that they came out with a beautiful report in the year 1995 and they have given their recommendations. But, it is yet to see the light of day. From 1995 onwards, it was lying unimplemented. What I am trying to ask is, whatever the recommendations given by the Committee, as I told you, the Parliamentary Committee is a mini-Parliament because the entire Parliament cannot take care of each and every issue and that is why the system is to refer to the Committee which can afford to go into the details and come out with recommendations. Normally, the Parliament in toto will agree with the recommendations of the Committee. Very rarely, they will deviate; they will modify one or two things marginally, not totally. In this particular case, Sir, you will be surprised to hear that the Parliamentary Committee's recommendations have been totally thrown off. I am sorry to say that the Parliamentary Committee has been insulted and it has been undermined. I want to put it on record before this hon. House what is the use of a Committee. When a Committee has been appointed it should be respected, it should be regarded. On the other hand, it is undermined; it is insulted. Sir, I will try to explain in one minute. Sir, when we look upon the Committee's recommendation and the proposed amendment, Sir, as early as on 1995, the Committee suggested para 8.12 to exempt the boilers which are below the capacity of 50 megawatts from the ambit of provisions proposed, whereas no change is proposed as per the present amendment. Secondly, Sir, para 88, mentions about the sweeping powers conferred on the single adviser under proposal Section 4 (a) and suggested to invest the same in the Central Boiler Board. The Committee has reservation over the sweeping nature of authority proposed to be delegated under Clause 27 of the Central Boiler Board in general, and to the technical adviser in particular. Whereas what has happened in the present Bill is that Section 4 (b), 4 (c) and 4 (d) are omitted but the crucial section 4 (a) is retained against the wishes of the Committee. Thirdly, Sir, the Committee opposed para 8.11, the compulsory imposition of third party inspection authority and suggested that it should be at the opinion of the States. That is the recommendation of the Committee; whereas, no change is proposed by the present proposed Bill. Fourthly, as per para 8.16, in the composition of the Central Boiler Board, the representation of all the States should be universal as at present. But, unfortunately, all the states given, representation but the enhanced representation of the other Members to the equal to the number in chief inspectorate. On the other hand, it is told that the private members are likely to be more than the official members. The last point on this, Sir, the Committee suggested consultation with Ministry of Labour before drafting the amendment Bill for addressing concerns of welfare and safety of the workers working in and around the boilers. (Contd. by NBR/3A)