PARLIAMENTARY REPORT


INDIA


announced in the House that she had admitted the motion under rule 184. The Trinamool Congress, a key alliance partner of the UPA government had left the alliance in September 2012 over the decision to allow 51 per cent FDI in retail trade, further reducing the strength of the Treasury Benches. Two major political parties, the Samajwadi Party (SP) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) giving support to the government from outside also had reservation on the issue of FDI in multi brand retail trade. A defeat in the House on the issue would not lead to the fall of the government; but it would be an embarrassment for the government if it failed to have the support of the House on an important economic reform policy. Three motions on the


subject were included in the Order Paper of 4 December 2012. One motion was listed in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Smt. Sushma Swaraj, MP, (BJP), recommending the government to immediately withdraw its decision. The two other motions,


one each in the name of Prof. Saugata Roy, MP, (AITC) and Shri Hassan Khan, (Independent) were for


another and discussed together as already mentioned in the Order Paper of the day and put to the vote of the House one by one, some members raised points of order. They pointed out that as


per Section 48 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act,


period during which a Member could move amendments or modifications was intact. The 30 days’ period would


Smt. Meira Kumar


(FEMA) 1999, every rule and regulation made under this Act, was to be laid before each House of Parliament, for a total period of thirty days. Thus, every member of


the House had a right to table amendments for the annulment or modification of Notification within 30 days. As the Notification was laid on the Table of the House on the 30 November 2012 and if the motion for modification was voted along with the motion under Rule 184, then the Members of would lose their right to move amendments. The Speaker in her ruling,


Smt. Sushma Swaraj, MP


modification of the government notification. When the Speaker announced that the three motions would be moved one after


observed that the effect of adoption of the motion under rule 184 was different from that of motions for modification. Since the subject matter of the motion under rule 184 and the motions for modification of the Notification was the same, the Speaker, in order to avoid repetition of debate on the subject, in her discretion, decided to allow a combined debate on the three motions followed by voting on each of them one by one. She, however, made it clear that the statutory


80 | The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue One


remain intact and could be exercised according to section 48 of the FEMA. So far as seeking amendments or moving modification was concerned, there was nothing in this rule or in the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 which prohibited discussion on a motion for modification of a rule or regulation made under this Act and laid on the Table of the House immediately after it had been laid on the Table of the House, observed the Speaker. Smt Swaraj criticized the government for not trying to build a political consensus on the issue of allowing FDI in multi brand retail trade despite promising to develop a consensus through consultation amongst various stakeholders that included the Chief Ministers of the State Governments and political parties. A competitive market benefitted consumers while a monopolistic one did not. The FDI was going to create


a monopolistic market which would be against the interest of consumers. She believed the policy would badly hurt


the consumers were left with no choice. The FDI also would not benefit farmers and a new type of middlemen would emerge. She rejected the government’s claim that FDI would generate employment and the provision of 30 per cent sourcing local sourcing from local industries was a myth. She pointed out that the Congress party itself opposed FDI during the time of BJP-led NDA government calling it anti-national. She wanted to know how the circumstances had changed and the reasons for the change in position of the Congress party. Smt. Swaraj ended her


argument against FDI in retail by saying, “we don’t want to win by defeating you, we want to win by convincing you.” She appealed to the members to support her motion and defeat FDI. She said the government would not fall if they lost the vote. Prof. Roy said FDI in multi-


Shri Kapil Sibal, MP


small retailers as the big multi- brand retailers would engage in predatory pricing, first wiping out competition at low rates and then selling at high prices when


brand retail would jeopardize the livelihood of 33 million people who were employed in the retail trade and badly impact the lives of the farmers whom this so called reform was seeking to address. FDI-driven retailing would be labour displacing. Bringing in Wal-Mart would either help the Americans or the Chinese, believed Prof. Roy. Shri Khan said he might not insist on voting if he was satisfied with the outcome of the discussion. The Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Shri Kapil Sibal, MP, said FDI in multi-brand retail would be allowed only in those cities of the country where the population was more than one million and there were 53 such cities in India. As per the policy if any state


did not want to allow FDI in retail it was free to do so, and as many states where the opposition parties were in power had raised their voice against FDI in multi-


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92