The UPA’s ambitious Food Security Bill on Monday got parliamentary approval with the Rajya Sabha passing it by a voice vote, after the Lok Sabha had already cleared it last week. With this, the stage is now set for the bill, considered to be a “game-changer”, to become a law after it receives presidential assent. The bill seeks to provide highly subsidised foodgrains to two-thirds of the country’s population as a right.
All the amendments moved by the Opposition to the bill were rejected. Some amendments, like the one moved by Samajwadi member Naresh Agrawal, were withdrawn while some members, including the BJP’s M. Venkaiah Naidu and Prakash Javadekar, did not press some of their amendments.
The proposed law is aimed at providing cheaper foodgrains to 50 per cent of the urban and 75 per cent of the rural population, which comes to around 820 million people. It will guarantee 5 kg of rice, wheat and coarse cereals per month per person at `3, `2 and `1 respectively. Once it becomes an Act, India will be part of a select league of nations that guarantee the majority of its population foodgrains.
The discussion on the bill was taken up after the statutory resolution was moved by Leader of the Opposition Arun Jaitley disapproving of the ordinance on food security, which was issued on July 5. It was, however, negated by the majority of members.
Mr Jaitley, who was joined by the CPI(M), CPI and AIADMK in moving the resolution, termed it as a “gimmick” with an eye on elections, and accused the government of violating constitutional norms by issuing an ordinance when the Parliament session was less than a month away. He said it was a “repackaging” of various existing schemes like PDS, mid-day meals and ICDS, and there was nothing new in it.
Replying to the debate on the bill, minister of state for food and consumer affairs K.V. Thomas said the government “had taken into consideration all the challenges (on the bill)”. He said the already existing food schemes of states would be protected.
The minister said the government would procure 30 per cent of foodgrains produced in the country to meet the requirements of the bill. He said pregnant women and lactating mothers were entitled to nutritious meals and maternity benefit of at least `6,000 for six months. He, however, conceded that it was “practically not possible” at present to implement the provisions of nutritious food for the entire population of the country.
Prof Thomas assured members that all “constructive and positive” suggestions would be carefully followed by the government at the time of framing rules under the law before its implementation.
Dismissing apprehensions over infringement of federal rights of the states voiced by Opposition members, particularly from the BJP’s M. Venkaiah Naidu and the AIADMK’s V. Maitriyan, the minister said on the issue of food security there cannot be a conflict between the Centre and states. “Therefore, there is no question of states’ rights being infringed. Unless both the Centre and the states work together on the proposed law, the benefits will not reach to the beneficiaries.”
Earlier, initiating the debate, Mr Venkaiah Naidu termed the law a “lollipop”, as he claimed the UPA government had brought it with an eye on the coming elections. He also accused the government of not providing enough in the bill to encourage farmers to grow more. “If this so, how can food security be ensured for the people? We cannot provide food security based on imports.”
Supporting the bill, BSP president Mayawati said most facilities proposed in the bill were already being implemented by various departments, and there is also a budget provision. But the government was creating an “impression” that more funds were allocated separately for this purpose, she said.
Questioning the timing of the legislation when elections were near, Sitaram Yechury of the CPI(M) demanded that the bill should cover the entire population of the country. He said money should not be a constraint in implementing the programme given that crores were being “wasted in scams”.
 Derek O’Brien (Trinamul Congress) accused the government of making a “mockery of federalism” by imposing the programme on states. According to him, 40 per cent of the population will benefit, 14 per cent will enjoy equal benefits, while the rest will get little benefit.
Supporting the bill, Naresh Agrawal (SP) said the states should have been consulted before bringing in the bill. “This is a vote bill, not a food bill,” he said, adding that the poor will not benefit from the programme.
Bashistha Narain Singh of the JD(U) demanded that the Centre bear the entire expenditure for implementation of the programme as states like Bihar were not in a position to incur additional expenditure to execute it. Narendra Budania (Congress) said: “No other country has this kind of an arrangement to ensure no person goes hungry.”