Hon.
Chairperson, Sir, I am grateful to you for giving me this opportunity to
speak on these important Bills regarding agriculture and farmers. The earlier
provisions had always hindered the freedom of farmers and traders in
choice-based marketing and also discouraged private investment in
development of alternative markets as also marketing infrastructure in the
agrarian sector. This Bill provides a direct link between traders and farmers
which just not only increases farmers’ income but also reduces the marketing
cost and shortens the supply chain which helps curb post-harvest losses to
farmers. The farmers will also get the freedom to sell their produce to the
traders who will be relieved of the licence raj. So, the agricultural sector
can take one120 step ahead for
making it a corruption-free system. The e-platform will also be encouraged by
this system. A dispute resolution140
mechanism has been set up in case of disputes between the farmers and traders.
Most farmers lack access to Government160
procurement facilities such as the APMC markets. So, small rural markets can
also emerge as a viable alternative for agricultural marketing if they are
provided with adequate infrastructural facilities which the Bill
intends to do by attracting private sector. As regards these benefits, you
should see that there should be unanimity in the support this
Bill gets which is not the case right now. There seems to be some
genuine concerns. The entire Opposition cannot be blamed on politics.240 There are some genuine concerns
also which the Central Government should take into consideration which is what I
will stress upon right now. If you look at the legislative
competence of the Parliament, this is an issue regarding agriculture280 which is a State subject and it
comes under Entry 14 of the List 2. Moreover, the subject concerning markets
and fairs is also in the State List which is under Entry 28 of List 2. The
provisions of the Bill320 seek
to regulate the sale and purchase of agricultural goods and according to
the Constitution such a law can only be brought by the State Government
as most of the issues are related to intra-State trade. So, the legislative
competence360 has to be looked
into if this Bill can be enacted by Parliament or not. With regard to
the APMC Act, I would like to submit that it is being weakened
now. There is a lot of investment, a lot of infrastructure and a lot of
administrative machinery already working for the betterment of this similar set-up
in the420 States also. So, how
is this going to be integrated with the existing system once the provisions of
this Bill come into effect? This is something that the Central Government needs
to look into. Apart from this, farmers have other concerns also. They have to
go to the banks; they have to go to the commission agents to get loans for480 sowing crops etc. Those issues also need
to be looked into. The other point that I wish to mention here is that I
represent a Parliamentary Constituency where we have a large
fishermen community. In the fish marketing sector, there are a very large
number of fisherwomen who trade at markets by selling fish door to door and
also on the road side. Now they do not have any kind of registration.
Even at this time of COVID-19 pandemic,560
they are facing a lot of trouble in their daily business. So, most fisherwomen who
are not registered, without any help from society, will not be able
to reap the benefits of the provisions of this Bill. This sector is also600 stressed. After unlocking and re-opening
of the fisheries sector, they are facing a disruptive commodity chain.
So, I would like to request the Central Government if they could use
the power of Section 5 of the Bill to specify rules640 and allow unregistered traders also to
go ahead with their business and give them some time to register
themselves. That would be a great help to these traders. On the question
of dispute resolution mechanism, I would like to submit that much of it
has been delegated to the Executive, like the Magistrates and District
Collectors. Now, the courts700
are not being involved in this. This provision would be a partial solution.
Apart from trade related disputes, farmers will have720 other legal battles also which could
be land-related battles and others. In these times, it would be
better if the Government thinks of setting up Agricultural Tribunals in
line with the provision of article 323 of Constitution of India. Contract
farming can lead to mono culture farming which can also lead to loss of
crop diversity which is a very serious concern. It is because when you
sow the same crop, it can be vulnerable and destructive. Pests also can800 lead to crop diseases. So, the new law
must find a way to address the additional risk that contract farmers have to
confront by ensuring protection to the farms. The major concern across the
parties is the Minimum Support Price.840
There has been no mention about the Minimum Support Price in any of
the three Bills and this is leading to a confusion. The Government
is saying that there is nothing to fear about the Minimum Support Price.
If that is the case, then why do they not make it liable for the private
players to ensure that Minimum Support Price is granted to the farmers? If that
is included, then much of the ruckus that is being created will be settled.
Hon. Chairperson, Sir, I speak today
in vehement opposition to the Farmers Produce (Trade and Commerce) Promotion
and Facilitation Bill, 2020. Each time I speak in this august House, my honourable
colleagues from the BJP tell me in960
the Central Hall that I should not be aggressive. I have not been
elected by the people of my constituency980
to keep quiet while this Government with its brute majority stamps out
cooperative federalism from every single aspect of governance. When I
saw the List of Business approved for discussion during this truncated
Session, what stands out is that behind every single new Bill or every Bill
replacing another Ordinance is the singular sinister motive of this
Government to destroy federalism, to undermine the authority of the States,
and encroach illegally on every subject included in the State List. This Bill
is particularly dangerous because it seeks to encroach on State autonomy on a
sensitive topic like agriculture which is1080 not only the main source of income for
a majority of Indians but also feeds this entire nation. Let me now go into
the Bill itself and dissect the most important parts. This Bill is
in direct violation of the1120
federal structure of the Constitution. It squarely puts agriculture, items
relating to agricultural land, rents, revenue assessment and collection on the
State List. Once again, this Government is doing what it does best which is
arrogating to itself a constitutional authority it is not vested with. The
second point is that the Bill creates two distinct areas with a single
geography. In Section 2 of the Bill, the definition of trade area includes all
other areas excluding the principal market1200
yards and sub-yards which are notified under the State APMC Acts and managed by
the regulated market committees and private market yards, private market
consumer yards. Now, there is going to be two areas. One is the trade
area according to this new Bill, and another is, the area comprising
market yards notified under the West Bengal State Act. The1260 current provisions of the State APMC
Act define the whole revenue district to be under the jurisdiction of the
State.1280 So, if this Bill
is defining a new area, it is unnecessarily creating ambiguity among
farmers and curtailing the jurisdiction of the State. Section 5 of the Bill
empowers the Central Government to specify procedure, norms, code of conduct
etc. with respect to electronic trading and transaction. If agriculture
is a State subject, then surely trading and transacting cannot be taken over by
the Centre. It is a direct assault on the States’ revenues. Section 6 of the
Bill lays out that no market fee, cess or levy under the State APMC Acts shall
now be levied on farmers and traders by the State Government for trading
in a trade area as defined in the new Bill. However, under the1400 existing State Acts, this market fee
will be payable. So, this is going to lead to a substantial loss to the State
exchequer because now any area outside the notified area will be treated as a
trade area where no1440 State
revenue can be realized. One farmer or trader trading in a trade area and
another being charged across the road by the State is going to create a
ridiculous rural divide. There is ambiguity about price protection. Nowhere in
this new Bill has it been explicitly mentioned that the Minimum Support
Price mechanism will be respected. The hon. Minister says it will be.
If that is so, why has he not mentioned it in the Bill? Nowhere in
this new Bill is the requirement for a license mentioned for trading in the
trade area, but as per most State Acts, a trader must have a license issued by
a regulated market or State Marketing Board for trading in scheduled
agricultural commodities. If a State has no control, then farmers are open to
unscrupulous, unlicensed traders. In conclusion, this Bill has absolutely no
interest in furthering the cause of farmers or farm traders. It is just
another blatant attempt at1600
blanking out federalism. All these monsters that you are creating by
removing constitutional safeguards will come back to bite you. 1624
