27.08.

2011

Uncorrected / Not for Publication

1932 hours THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE): Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to express my deep appreciation for all the hon. Members and as I understand, up to now, 27 hon. Members of this House have spoken since 11 o clock. Most respectfully, I would like to request the hon. Members to take their seats because 27 Members have spoken. I do appreciate that many more Members wanted to express their views. Unfortunately, we could not do so because there is constraint of the time. Mr. Bwiswmuthiary, please take your seat. This is the constraint of the time. There is an occasion where we shall have to deliberate a discussion because the issues which we are discussing today is not merely an academic exercise, theorization because I am told that the views of this House, as they are being expressed by various speakers, may lead to a situation where somebody will take an important decision. Therefore, in that context, this debate has assumed a larger dimension. That is why, in the morning I stated that it is not my intention to score any debating point; it is not my intention to pass on blame to anybody. I just stated the factual position from day one, in which we tried to handle the situation. (Interruptions) It may be; you may call it bungling; you may call it mismanagement. I will not quarrel with you. And I have no intention of issues with you. The short point which I am trying to drive at, I am repeating it; recalling it, on 5th of April, Shri Anna Hazare decided to go on fast indefinitely. (h5/1935/ksp/jr) The issue on which he was agitating, none of us sitting in this Chamber can say the issue is not important, none of us can say the issue is not to be addressed, none of us can condemn or criticise the person who is going to raise this issue and even in an old age, taking the risk of endangering his life you may call it, we have bungled, I will accept it. But in that context, immediately the Prime Minister decided, through his interlocutors, to suggest to the representatives of Shri Anna Hazare that what can address his concern, what mechanism we could evolve and
Comment: Cd by h5 Comment: (Shri Pranab Mukherjee Cd.)

27.08.2011

Uncorrected / Not for Publication

the mechanism was suggested, which I indicated in the morning and it was the Joint Drafting Committee. We have been criticised, there is no doubt about it. But at the same time, please remember that in the largest functional democracy of the world, encompassing 120 crore plus people, it is not necessary that always we shall have to move in the conventional strait-jacket way, mechanical way because it is the largest functional democracy. (Interruptions) Please, most respectfully I would like to submit that we can have some control on our tongue, Heaven is not going to fall, you are not going to be dumped from tomorrow, you can use as many abusive languages as you prefer to us; only for todays sake, I am requesting you with folded hands not to do so. Therefore, it was decided like that. Yes, it is a non-conventional way. I am not a new Minister. I know how Government functions. Normally, legislation is drafted by the Ministry through the help of the civil servants. After that, with interministerial consultations it gets the approval of the Cabinet. Then it is brought to the House and after that, it is sent to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee has come into existence from 1991. But in the history of Indian Parliament, from 1947 to 1950, it was the Central Assembly, from 1950 onwards, it was the Provisional Parliament and from 1952 onwards, it is the Lok Sabha. In 1991, the Standing Committee came. Before that, there was a process of Select Committee. Even when the Bill is being introduced, any Member could get up and move a Motion asking for the Bill to be circulated for eliciting public opinion. That was the conventional way in which we were making legislation. But recognizing the fact, admitting our own lapses, if we could not do it, it is our lapse. I was a Minister in the 1970s, in the 1980s, in the 1990s and yes, during our time we could not do it. As Sushmaji has admitted, during their time also, the Bill was introduced twice. Even in 1996, when the United Front Government was there, of which Mr. Gurudas Dasguptas Party was a participant, they also could not pass it and it happened. We recognize that for 40 years, legislation could not be passed. Therefore, if somebody is making an agitation,

27.08.2011

Uncorrected / Not for Publication

sitting on fast and demands a particular mechanism, through the process of consultation we agreed. (j5/1940/rs/har) We tried; we tried our best. It is unfortunate that we could not agree on all points. But there were substantial agreements. As I mentioned, out of 40 basic principles on as many as 34 there were agreements; on six, there were differences. I sought the opinion of the others. In democratic process we shall have to always create a situation where there will be give and take. I thought in that process we would be able to resolve it, but we could not. Then, we have to go through it. And it is not new, I made clear from day one that this is prior consultation before the normal legislation making process begins. Thereafter we will follow the entire legislation making process in the usual course and we did so. Yes, it may not be up to your expectation, you are free to do so. Whatever was incorporated in the Bill would be subjected to the scrutiny of the Standing Committee, it would be subjected to the scrutiny of this House and thereafter with your approval, with the approval of the House, it would be passed. If you want to include Prime Minister, you will be able to free to do so; if you want to delete any provision, you will be free to do so; and if you want to strengthen it by making any amendment, you are free to do so. So, what is so grave that a particular Bill is to be withdrawn or a particular Bill, which has been introduced, to be burnt publicly? That is, of course, not a democratic way. democracy. In democracy, individuals should have the right to express their views and also their dissent. You may not like it, till that was not the final. Thereafter I am not going to recount because in the morning I did so I will like to share some information with the hon. Members. I am not making any comment on the Bill because in this Bill -- as I mentioned, which we have placed for the consideration There should be a distinction between mobocracy and
Comment: (Cd. by j5)

27.08.2011

Uncorrected / Not for Publication

a substantial number of principles, basic ideas, basic values of the Jan Lokpal Bill have been incorporated in the our language. The six issues where we have differences, there also we hope that it would be possible to have some agreement and we are working on it. But unfortunately, thereafter the line of communication was snapped. We were threatened with the agitation that this Bill was to be passed by 15th August, which I found that the Session starting from 1st of August, and by 15th August it might be difficult. Therefore, when the actual first thing started, again the line of communication was started and we tried our best. We shared in the morning what happened chronologically. Corruption is an important issue, but does anyone of us believe seriously -- not to score a debating point -- one piece of legislation, however, powerful and effective it may be, however, independent and empowered it may be that piece of legislation will completely eradicate corruption? There is a need for the change in the system and we are doing so. I can give you one example. In my own Department, there was a constant complaint Shri Yashwant Sinhaji will agree with me in regard to the refund claim of the taxpayer. (k5/1945/rcp/asa) And, as a result in technical term our people are talking of; I did not hear the English term electronisation in my school days through electronisation, through taking the IT platform and net banking, from April onwards, we have been able to ensure the refund to the extent of more than 37 per cent. There the tax collectors and the recipients of the refunds do not see face to face; everything is transacted through electronic mechanism. These are the system changes we are thinking. We are hoping that by next month or by October, 20 crore people of this country will have Unique Identity Number and Mr. Nilekani is assuring us that he would be in a position in the next two to three years to provide the Unique Identity Number to all the residents of India, not merely the citizens but to all the residents
Comment: cd. by k5 Comment: Shri Pranab Mukherjee contd.

27.08.2011

Uncorrected / Not for Publication

of India. That itself would create a new system where individual discretion will be eliminated substantially. We have introduced the PAN card in the area of taxation. The same PAN card could be used for all sorts of taxes from commercial tax, Sales Tax, to Goods and Services Tax if introduced, to Income Tax. So, these are the systemic changes which we are trying to bring about. It is taking time. Sometimes we are through. Therefore strong legislation is needed. Strong, powerful institution to supervise the effective implementation of the legislation is needed. At the same time, a systematic change is needed. This is the area where we shall have to work collectively today. Madam Speaker, I have not listened to all the speakers sitting here but they should not have the feeling that I did not listen to them. Yes, I had to sometimes consult the various leaders because this is an important debate. I must appreciate substantially the hon. Members who have participated. They have come to the occasion, risen to the occasion, and have raised the level of the debate. Acrimony which we see normally has been reduced substantially because, as I mentioned, it is not merely an academic, a theoretical discussion. We are trying, through this debate, to resolve an important issue, an agitation carried on by a very respectable leader having very broad support. And, at the same time, being the Members of the Parliament, we take oath by Constitution to abide by the Constitutional norms and principles, to protect the Constitution, we shall have to abide by the Constitution which we have received from Baba Saheb Ambedkar. One young man little impatiently was speaking, but for Baba Saheb Ambedkar, perhaps he would not have entered into this House. But, without Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and other founding fathers of the Constitutions, I can assure that hon. Member that not only he, perhaps as a village boy I could have never entered into this Chamber. It is because it is possible today when we are seeing the major changes which are coming in the horizon of Indian politics, the

27.08.2011

Uncorrected / Not for Publication

people coming from that sector of the society which could never imagine 50 or 60 years ago to assume the high offices which they are holding.
Comment: Contd. by l5

27.08.2011

Uncorrected / Not for Publication

7
Comment: Sh. Pranab Mukherjee cd.

(l5/1945/rp-sb) It is the contribution of democracy. It is the contribution of the constitutional mechanism. It is the Constitution which has been just described by Sir Anthony Eden as the biggest Magna Carta for socio-economic transformation which is the Indian Constitution. Therefore, it is our responsibility to abide by the Constitution to ensure that there is no conflict with the desire of the people who are our masters, there is no question of conflict. Our democracy is powerful enough, strong enough and flexible enough to accommodate various view points. the years. Madam Speaker, what I understand from the observations of the various hon. Members who have participated in the debate, and if I can convert it into the sense of the House, then perhaps I can convey the sense of the House in the following words: The House discussed various issues relating to setting up of a strong and effective Lokpal. This House agrees in principle on the following issues: Citizens Charter, Lower Bureaucracy also to be under the Lokpal through appropriate mechanism, and Establishment of Lok Ayuktas in the States. Madam Speaker, I will request you to transmit the proceedings to the Department-related Standing Committee for its perusal while formulating its recommendations for a Lokpal Bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Once again I thank you all the distinguished participants. MADAM SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned to meet on Monday the 29th August, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. 1948 hours It can allow various thoughts, various pools of thoughts to develop, to flourish and it has done so over

27.08.2011

Uncorrected / Not for Publication

The Lok Sabha then adjourned till Eleven of the Clock on Monday, August 29, 2011/Bhadra 7,1933 (Saka).

Comment: Friday, March 10, 2000/Phalguna 20, 1921 (Saka).