Hon.
Speaker, we have given our notice to take up the subject which is a
burning issue at this crucial juncture. The poorest of the poor people
are actually fighting with hunger. In the other sense, the hungry people are
fighting with hunger so far as the price rise is concerned. The
Government increased the prices of petrol, diesel, kerosene and LPG recently.
This will affect the rate of inflation and put additional burden on the common
man. The Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas gave a statement in Lok Sabha
yesterday. The House needs to discuss this important issue which concerns the
common man.
Madam, the whole country is expecting
this issue to be debated on the floor120
of the House with all importance and on priority. But they are getting
frustrated to see that the debate which is140
(1) actually going on is over the rule under which this issue can be
taken up for discussion. Whether it is160
an adjournment motion or the discussion under Rule 184, it is indirectly a ‘No
Objection Motion’ to the Government. It can be taken for granted
that a Government can never agree that this discussion is held under
Rule 184 or under Adjournment Motion. So, a discussion under Rule 193 can be
the best way to discuss it.
Madam,
what I propose is that let it be debated. All political parties
belonging to the Opposition extended support to the Government240 and they expressed their intention that
they want to take part in the discussion to highlight the issues of the poor people
of the country. We are also of the same opinion. The hon. Prime
Minister has very categorically said that280 the Government will never retreat to take any
decision on (2) the floor of the House and let the House continue
smoothly and let the matters be discussed very smoothly. So, we fully
agree that this matter is to be taken320 as the topmost priority.
The
leader of our party put her note of dissent and raised her voice that
price rise will affect the common people. We still believe that ‘price hike’
can be taken up for discussion so360
that at least some portion of it can be reduced. This will be our appeal when
the debate will take place. I hope that this discussion can be taken up
under Rule 193 and be started immediately. We believe that the UPA Government
has no hesitation to initiate this debate or to take part in the debate
more than any420 other party
which is present in the Parliament at this juncture. We hope that a
debate under Rule 193 can be initiated at the earliest possible time.
It
has been argued (3) from the Treasury
Benches that this is not a recent occurrence and an urgent issue.
Madam, I would like to just plead before you that the rise in the prices480 of kerosene as well as LPG is
certainly a case of recent occurrence. Secondly, the decision to decontrol the
petroleum products, as has been stated by the hon. Member, has
been taken recently, and this has not been informed to this august
House. The hon. Prime Minister, who is present here now, has already
indicated that diesel would be decontrolled. Madam, these are all recent
occurrences and recent happenings. The issue of rise in the prices of other560 essential commodities has been agitating
the Members of the House. There are some supporting parties,
which have some reservations about the rise in the prices of kerosene and LPG. They
have not attended the meeting of the Group of Ministers held under600 the Chairmanship of our esteemed Leader
of this House and (4) also the hon. Finance Minister. They have their
reservations and they have not supported the rise in the prices of
kerosene and LPG.
Madam,
many instances have been given before you. 640
It has also been pointed out as to how the hon. Chair on the
previous occasions had given the permission to discuss this issue under the
Adjournment Motion. Petrol has already been decontrolled, and the prospective
decontrol of diesel is a major policy issue, which has been taken
by the Government outside the House. Many700 hon. Members are here. Both the hon. Home Minister
and the hon. Minister of Human Resource Development are very learned and very
good parliamentarians.720
Academically also, they are very sound. Is it not desirable on the part of the
Government at present that they should bring about all these issues for
discussion in the House before declaring any decontrolling process? Why
should they not discuss all these policy matters inside the House? (5)
I
could not cite immediately but there have been
precedents that on earlier occasions such things were discussed in
the House. What is the harm if such issues are discussed and debated inside800 the House? They have the majority;
they can pass whatever they like. Their supporting parties are also present
here. What is the harm if these decisions are taken inside the House?
The House should have been840
taken into confidence. Therefore, I would submit that this is
certainly an urgent issue and it is a recent occurrence also. It conforms to
the provisions in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the House.
Madam, you kindly admit this Adjournment Motion. It should be discussed
immediately because it concerns the common man. In the name of common
man, the Food Security Bill is being brought before this House very
soon. It is because they want to give protection to the common man and they
want to help (6) the common man. But by this increase in the price of
kerosene, are they protecting the common man? Therefore, in view of the
importance it has for the common man960
as well as for the people of the country at large, I hope you will
agree with the Opposition that this980
Adjournment Motion should be admitted by the Chair and discussed
immediately.
Madam
Speaker, the House is discussing whether the issue
of price rise should be discussed under the Adjournment Motion or under Rule
193. This House has seen many Members of Parliament for the past 60 years.
Please tell me which Government has not agreed to have a discussion on the
issue of price rise? Each and every Government has faced the same type
of discussion, particularly on the issue of price rise. No Session of
Parliament has escaped from discussing this particular issue. But at the same
time, 1080 the debate is over
the rule under which it should be taken up. (7) The Treasury
Bench says that we can have a discussion on this issue under Rule 193.
But the Opposition says that it has to be discussed only1120 in the form of Adjournment
Motion. The Opposition never loses a chance. Whenever the first chance occurs,
they would fish out of the troubled waters. When I was there along with them in
the Treasury Benches, the Congress took up many chances to discuss the issue of
price rise. But here, they are trying to destabilize the Government. But that
cannot and will not happen, unless the constituents of Congress are suffering
otherwise.
Madam,
my only question to the Opposition1200
is that if they have the guts to raise any issue against this
Government, let them come out with the No Confidence Motion. They will not
do so because they cannot pass the No Confidence Motion. So, there is no
other way. I am sorry to say that the discussion cannot be (8) held
under the Adjournment Motion. We cannot1260
leave this Government to fall.
Madam
Speaker, I was listening to the observations made by the Leader of the
Opposition and1280 a large
number of other distinguished colleagues. I am not going to the
merits of the issue because the issue will be debated as it was debated
last time. This time also, it will be debated and in the
course of the debate, definitely we will have the opportunity of
discussing it from various aspects. As a member of the Government, I
would be interested to have any constructive suggestion from my
colleagues sitting on this side or that side. Here I am
keeping my observations just on the admissibility of the Adjournment Motion.
Madam, the final decision will be taken by you, and whatever decision you take,
it will be binding on us. But I appreciate that1400 you have allowed the Members (9) to
express their views as to why Adjournment Motion should be admitted. But
I am sorry to say that most of the Members have spread the scope of the
discussion much wider. I am not going to widen1440 this scope.
One
of the learned Members from the Opposition gave a long discourse as if for
the first time the petroleum products were decontrolled and placed under
market-related conditions. He completely forgot that we introduced it in June,
2004. Before that, during the entire regime of the NDA, it was decontrolled. I
am not going to that aspect. I am reserving that for discussion later on.
The short question is whether this discussion can be admitted under the
Adjournment Motion. I have no problem in having discussion on this issue as
we discussed earlier. Incidentally, somebody has asked what has (10) happened
to the food inflation. When I am talking to you today, it has come down from 21
per cent in December to 12 per cent.1570
