Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697751470492.pdf (India)
56 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2013-2014) FIFTEENTH LOK SABHA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CO-OPERATION) „THE AGRICULTURAL BIOSECURITY BILL, 2013‟ FIFTY SIXTH REPORT LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI December 2013/Agrahayana, 1935 (Saka) 1 FIFTY SIXTH REPORT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2013-2014) (FIFTEENTH LOK SABHA) MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & COOPERATION) „THE AGRICULTURAL BIOSECURITY BILL, 2013‟ Presented to Hon‘ble Speaker, Lok Sabha on 04.01.2014 Presented to Lok Sabha on Laid on the table of Rajya Sabha on 05.02.2014 05.02.2014 LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI December 2013/Agrahayana, 1935 (Saka) 2 COA No.
279 Price: Rs.

© 2013 By Lok Sabha Secretariat Published under Rule 382 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha (Fourteenth Edition) and Printed by 3 <CONTENTS> PAGE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (2013-14)………………………… (iii) COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (2012-13)………………………… (v) INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………… (vii) REPORT PART- I Background analysis of ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘ 01 PART-II Recommendations and Observations of the Committee 30 ANNEXURES I. II.
‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘ List of State Governments/Union Territories which submitted Written Memoranda to the Committee.

34 89 III.

List of Individuals/Experts/Organisations who submitted Written Memoranda to the Committee 90 IV.
List of State Governments who tendered Oral Evidence before the Committee V. List of Individuals/Experts/Organisations who appeared for Personal Hearing before the Committee 91 92 4 APPENDICES Minutes of the 28th Sitting of the Committee held on 21 May, 2013 (2012-13) Minutes of the 34th Sitting of the Committee held on 15 July, 2013 (2012-13) Minutes of the 36th Sitting of the Committee held on 01 August, 2013 (2012-13) Minutes of the 37th Sitting of the Committee held on 07 August, 2013 (2012-13) Minutes of the 38th Sitting of the Committee held on 26 August, 2013 (2012-13) Minutes of the 4th Sitting of the Committee held on 08 October, 2013 (2013-14) Minutes of the 6th Sitting of the Committee held on 11 November, 2013 (2013-14) Minutes of the 12th Sitting of the Committee held on 09 December, 2013 (2013-14) Minutes of the 13th Sitting of the Committee held on 19 December, 2013 (2013-14) I. II.
III.

IV.

V. VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

93 96 98 101 103 105 109 113 115 5 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2013-14) Shri Basudeb Acharia - Chairman MEMBERS LOK SABHA Shri Narayansingh Amlabe Shri Sanjay Singh Chauhan Shri H.D.

Devegowda Smt.

Ashwamedh Devi Shri L. Raja Gopal Smt.

Paramjit Kaur Gulshan Shri Anant Kumar Hegde Shri Premdas Katheria Shri P. Kumar Smt.

Botcha Jhansi Lakshmi Sardar Sukhdev Singh Libra Dr. Jyoti Mirdha Shri Kachhadia Naranbhai Shri Devji M. Patel Smt.
Bhavana Gawali (Patil) Shri Jagdish Singh Rana Shri Rajaiah Siricilla Shri Patel Kishanbhai V. Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey „Vinnu‟ Shri Hukumdeo Narayan Yadav RAJYA SABHA Shri N. Balaganga Shri Satyavrat Chaturvedi Smt.

Mohsina Kidwai Shri Dharmendra Pradhan Dr. K.V.P.

Ramachandra Rao Shri Parshottam Khodabhai Rupala Shri Rajpal Singh Saini Shri S. Thangavelu Shri Shivanand Tiwari Shri Darshan Singh Yadav (iii) 6 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.


23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

SECRETARIAT 1.

2.

3.

Shri A. Louis Martin Smt.

Abha Singh Yaduvanshi Shri C. Vanlalruata - - - Joint Secretary Director Deputy Secretary (iv) 7 COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2012-13) Shri Basudeb Acharia - Chairman MEMBERS LOK SABHA Shri Narayansingh Amlabe Shri Sanjay Singh Chauhan Shri H.D.

Devegowda Smt.

Ashwamedh Devi Shri L. Raja Gopal Smt.


Paramjit Kaur Gulshan Shri Anant Kumar Hegde Shri Premdas Katheria Shri P. Kumar Dr.

(Smt.)

Botcha Jhansi Lakshmi Sardar Sukhdev Singh Libra Dr. Jyoti Mirdha Shri Naranbhai Kachhadia Shri Devji M. Patel Smt.

Bhavana Gawali (Patil) Shri Jagdish Singh Rana Shri Rajaiah Siricilla Shri Patel Kishanbhai V. Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey „Vinnu‟ Shri Hukamdeo Narayan Yadav RAJYA SABHA Shri Satyavrat Chaturvedi Vacant Smt.

Mohsina Kidwai Shri Dharmendra Pradhan Dr. K.V.P.


Ramachandra Rao Shri Parshottam Khodabhai Rupala Shri Rajpal Singh Saini Shri Shivanand Tiwari Shri S. Thangavelu Shri Darshan Singh Yadav 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

*23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.


__________________________________________________________________________ *Vice Shri A. Elavarasan who ceased to be the Member of the Committee on his retirement from Rajya Sabha on 24 July, 2013.

(v) 8 INTRODUCTION I, the Chairman, Committee on Agriculture having been authorized by the Committee to present the report on their behalf, present this Fifty-Sixth Report) on ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill 2013‘.

2.
2.

The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 11 March, 2013.

The Speaker referred the Bill to the Committee under Rule 331E(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.

The Committee were briefed by the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture 3.

(Department of Agriculture and Co-operation) on the Bill on 21 May, 2013.

The Committee invited suggestions/views of various stakeholders on the Bill 4. through an advertisement in the media.
In response, written suggestions/memoranda were received from 16 individuals/Organisations.

5.

The Committee also sought the views of State Governments/Union Territory Administrations on various clauses of the Bill.

Fourteen State Government viz.

Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh and six Union Territory Administrations viz.
Andaman and Nicobar, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Delhi and Puducherry forwarded their views to the Committee.

6.

The Committee took oral evidence of the representatives of the State Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Haryana; Karnataka; Punjab and Tamil Nadu respectively and also heard the views of an expert on 01 August, 2013, 26 August, 2013 and 08 October, 2013 .

The Committee took oral evidence of the representatives of Ministry of 7.
Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and Co-operation) on 11 November, 2013.

The Committee at their sitting held on 19 December 2013 considered and 8. adopted the Report.

The Committee express their thanks to the Individuals/Experts/Organisations 9. who furnished Memoranda giving their views/suggestions on the Bill.

10.
10.

The Committee also wish to express their thanks to the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and Co-operation) for tendering of evidence before the Committee and furnishing the requisite information in connection the State with examination of Governments/Union Territory Administrations which furnished their suggestions/views in They also express the Bill.
thanks their to 9 writing on various clauses of the Bill and also to the representatives of the State Governments who tendered evidence before the Committee.

NEW DELHI; 19 December, 2013 28 Agrahayana, 1935 (Saka) Committee on Agriculture BASUDEB ACHARIA Chairman, (viii) 10 REPORT PART-I BACKGROUND ANALYSIS OF „THE AGRICULTURAL BIOSECUIRTY BILL, 2013‟ ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘ (Annexure-I) was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 11 March, 2013.
The Bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture by the Speaker, Lok Sabha on 9 May, 2013 for examination and Report.

1.2 Over the years, systems have been developed and put in place for protection of plant, animal and marine health.
The Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage (DPPQ&S) in the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (DAC), through its 35 plant quarantine stations, enforces plant quarantine regulations stipulated in the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 issued under the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914.
The Directorate has also been implementing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as the main strategy for plant protection since 1985 through 31 Central Integrated Pest Management Centres (CIPMCs).

Under the Livestock Importation Act, 1898, the import of livestock and livestock products is regulated through international ports at Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai.
Land- border check-post at Petrapole (West Bengal) and sea-ports at Kochi and Vishakhapattinam under the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (DAHD&F) regulate the import of aquatic animals.
1.3 The Core Group constituted by Department of Agriculture and Cooperation in 2008 pointed out that the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 and the Livestock 11 Importation Act, 1898 are age old legislations and are subsidiary to the Customs Act, 1962 which does not give direct powers to the quarantine officers to deport or destroy or confiscate the consignment or lodge complaints under the Indian Penal Code.

Inadequate or obsolete definitions in these Acts need to be updated.
Adequate provisions for regulating plants, livestock and aquatics and powers for inspecting transport vehicles and seizure and destruction of infested or infected plants and livestock or their products have to be incorporated.

Punishment or penalty on the importers or custom house clearing agents or other defaulters for violation of provisions of the legislation has to be provided.

Provisions for effective domestic quarantine have to be incorporated.
The enabling legislation for the proposed biosecurity authority would have to be enacted.

1.4 The existing systems of the country need major changes to meet the emerging challenges of agricultural biosecurity through policies and technological capabilities to prevent, detect, and respond to threats of pests & diseases.
An integrated approach towards agricultural biosecurity would not only increase the national capacity to protect human health, agricultural production and livelihoods and safeguard the environment, but also equip the country to meet obligations under international trade and sanitary and phytosanitary agreements in food and agricultural products.

Agricultural biosecurity is an essential element of sustainable agricultural development.
The National Commission on Farmers (NCF) has recommended developing a National Agricultural Biosecurity System characterized by high professional, public, and political credibility through integration of plant, animal and fish management systems on biosecurity based on risk analysis and management.

It has also recommended establishment of synergies in 12 requirements of international agreements and national regulations across these sectors to avoid duplication of resources.
The National Policy for Farmers (2007) has identified strengthening the biosecurity of crops, farm animals, fish, and forest trees for safeguarding the livelihood and income security of farmer families and the health and trade security of the nation as a major policy goal.

1.5 In the 3rd meeting of the Agriculture Co-ordination Committee held on 15 February, 2008, it was recognized that it is essential to establish an integrated national biosecurity system covering plant, animal and marine issues.
A Core Committee, constituted by the DAC in April, 2008, submitted a report recommending establishment of the National Agriculture Biosecurity System (NABS) requiring a new legislation which is more relevant in the context of the present scenario.

It suggested that the traditional approach of managing agricultural biosecurity on a sectoral basis through the development and implementation of separate policy and legislative frameworks (e.g.
for animal and plant life and health) would have to be converted to a cohesive and convergent approach recognizing the interdisciplinary nature of biosecurity.
In a harmonized and integrated system, various authorities would work together towards the common goal of agricultural biosecurity utilizing expertise from various organizations under the Ministries of Agriculture, Commerce and Industry, Defence, Environment and Forests, Health and Family Welfare, Home Affairs, Rural Development and Science and Technology.
Accordingly, the Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2012 (now 2013) was mooted and the proposal was considered and approved by the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on 17.05.2012.

The direction of the Union Cabinet regarding inclusion of representatives of various State Governments/Union Territories in the proposed 13 National Agricultural Biosecurity Authority on rotation basis was incorporated in the Bill.

The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013 has been introduced in Lok Sabha on 11th March, 2013.
1.6 During the course of a briefing meeting on the Bill, when asked about the extant system for protection of plant and animal species, the Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation informed as under:- ―As of now when we undertake any kind of import, the statutory backing for the prevention of import of either plant or animal species or products which may cause injury to either human or animal or environmental health, is dealt through three separate legislations.
The first one is on the sanitary side, which is the human health side.

That is dealt with by the Ministry of Health and now through the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.

That is legislated to look at all matters relating to impact on human health.
There is no particular procedure prescribed as such for import except to the extent that any commodity that is imported into the country must meet the stipulations and the criteria laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the standards prescribed thereunder.

That is on the human health side.

On the plant health issue, we have the Destructive Insects and Pests Act which dates back to 1914, nearly a hundred years ago, under which we have issued the plant quarantine order in 2003.
Before that, any plant material – by plant material I mean any living organism on the plant side; it could be micro-organism, it could be weeds, it could even be food commodities which are unprocessed – was allowed access into our country as long as it was accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the notified authority of the exporting country.

The phytosanitary certificate certified that the exported commodity was free from pests and diseases.
That is what it took for being allowed to be imported into the country.

In 2003 under the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, we promulgated the plant quarantine order in which on the basis of pest risk appraisal conducted within the country, we identified certain conditions for import of each crop.

Earlier there was a free list for imports.

Now we have a positive list of imports.

For each crop we have prescribed the conditions that must be sought in respect of import from each region.
For instance, if we allow wheat to be imported, there are general conditions which are to be met by all the countries; the others are specific conditions related to each specific country.
What we try to do through the plant quarantine order is to prescribe that the notified authority in the exporting country must certify that the consignments are free from any pests or diseases which are alien to the importing country, so that along with the imported consignment, some dangerous pests or weeds or diseases do not come into our country.

14 In the plant quarantine order we have also prescribed some plant commodities which are not allowed to be imported.
There are some commodities which we prescribed that can only be imported subject to the recommendations, supervision and inspection by the designated national research centre of the ICAR in respect of that particular crop.

For each commodity we have prescribed different conditions for import.
When the commodity is to be imported, it has to be imported on the basis of an import permit issued by the officers in our plant quarantine stations and when it comes into the country it has to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate from the point of origin.

After it meets those conditions, it is allowed entry into the country.

We have I think 35 plant quarantine stations across the country from where plants can be imported‖.
1.7 He further submitted that:- ―On the animal husbandry side, they allow the import of animals, etc.

under the Livestock Importation Act which dates back to 1898.

On that basis they have only five or six designated ports of entry into the country where they have their own quarantine stations.

Likewise, the animal that is allowed into the country has to meet the conditions prescribed by the quarantine authorities in the Animal Husbandry Department.
What we found over the course of several years is that due to increase in trade when India was seeking an increasing role for its exports, we came across a stumbling block in the shape of SPS measures.

These were imposed mainly by developed countries in the West.

We found that most of the developed countries take shelter behind autonomous organizations that they have created which set the standards in respect of imports of commodities.
Even when we say we have a strong case on the basis of science for exporting to their countries, they sometimes take shelter behind the fact that because this is an autonomous body, so we have to follow the procedures and protocols for revision of the standards, and that used to take a long time.

We found that this was a delaying tactics adopted by a lot of developed countries‖.

1.8 There are models of integrated biosecurity systems/organizations in countries like Australia, New Zealand and USA.
During the evidence before the Committee, the Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation stated:- ―….three or four countries had very stringent requirements, very well- structured organisational set-ups for protecting their bio-security.

….in certain countries the set up for looking after all the SPS aspects of the agreement on agriculture is vested with a single umbrella body ……… Australia, New Zealand, China and the USA specifically.
These countries use these bodies to ensure that there was no loophole under which imports could take place in products which 15 are sometimes difficult to distinguish whether they are agricultural products, or animal husbandry products or fishery products‖.

1.9 On being queried by the Committee about the existence of autonomous bodies, the Secretary clarified as under:- ―For instance, USA has got APHIS, Australia and New Zealand have got AQIS, China has got AQIIS.
These are the countries which have the most stringent plant quarantine regimes.

They have got very tough quarantine regimes.

Whenever we try to make a breakthrough in exporting to these countries, we come across this roadblock when they refer each matter to this regulatory and autonomous body which takes a lot of time.
As you are aware, when we first managed to export or get entry in the US for export of our mangoes, that took place after 22 years of negotiations,…… in Japan after 18 years of negotiation‖.

1.10 He further added:- ―….during the negotiations, an argument that the regulatory systems in those countries is governed by autonomous bodies on which Government does not have control and the Government cannot give directions.

This is being used by these countries as an argument for delaying market access to us‖.
―There was a working group set up in the Ministry of Agriculture under the chairmanship of the then Additional Secretary, Department of Agriculture and the Department of Animal Cooperation which had representation Husbandry, as well as from the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, which studied the systems in major developed countries and then came up with this idea of having a bio-security authority‖.
from 1.11 During the course of his oral deposition before the Committee, the representative of Department of Agriculture and Cooperation on being asked as to whether the Government felt that the present mechanism for plant and animal quarantine was inadequate to meet the challenges posed by globalization and liberalization stated as under: 16 ―……..Post-liberalisation, with the increase in trade in agricultural commodities, first of all, the main issue that we had to address was that in India importation used to take place from any country in the world merely on the basis of Phyto- sanitary certificate issued by the designated authority in the exporting country certifying that the product they are exporting are free from any pest or disease.
That was the only criterion that was applicable in India for importation.

We noticed that several of the developed countries had extremely stringent regulatory measures specifying crop-wise the kind of freedom from pests and diseases that were required for their imports from any of the countries.
So, these developed countries used to specify specific freedoms to be certified in the Phyto-sanitary certificate and these obligations on the exporting country were different for different countries depending on the pest profile.

Post liberalisation, we found, with increase in trade in agricultural commodities, it was becoming more and more difficult for India to gain access to these developed countries for the export of our produce.
Lots of times our applications for export to these countries were rejected on the basis that we did not fulfil the criterion that they mentioned in their pest appraisal and in their requirements of Phyto-sanitary certificates from us.

……….

in international trade, all issues related to issue of certificates, whether they are Phyto-sanitary certificates or zoo sanitary certificates or sanitary certificates, are supposed to be science based but to a large extent these also depend on quid-pro-quo‖.
1.12 Elaborating on the success of the Plant Quarantine Order, 2003, he further submitted that:- ―……the first act that we did was to promulgate a Plant Quarantine Order.

That listed out crop-wise the category of plants that would not be allowed entry into the country under any circumstances because we felt that the pests and diseases associated with those plants are such that our country cannot risk to import them.
We listed other categories of plants which could be imported from countries under specific recommendations of the designated ICAR institute.

For these crops, there were specific pest and disease profiles which were of concern to us and we thought that the best people to guide us in this matter are the designated institutes of the ICAR.
Also, we had another schedule in which we had a positive list of each commodity specifying the kind of conditions that we prescribe for the import of these commodities from each country.

…….This step that we took in 2003 led to a great improvement in our getting market access to other countries abroad, ……once we put up a system which we say is regulated by science, then it puts pressure on the other countries to also allow imports of our commodities.

Then it becomes a quid-pro-quo.


We allow market access to certain products of theirs and they also allow market access to certain product of ours.

That helps the interest of India.

….

that was the first step that we had taken.


So, when we were implementing the provisions of the Plant Quarantine Order 17 and when we were negotiating with various countries bilaterally for improvement of market access, we noticed that three or four countries had very stringent requirements, and very well-structured organisational set up for protecting their bio-security‖.
1.13 In response to a specific query of the Committee regarding delay in issuing of the Plant Quarantine Order in 2003, the Committee were informed that:- ―In fact, when we signed the WTO agreement that is exactly what I am saying, I would not call it a delay because at that time our trade in agricultural products was mainly confined to the Middle East and Europe.

Those were the main areas of our focus.


Even today a lot of our agricultural trade are in these two areas and in those areas because of historic reasons, of historic trade ties, the pest profile of those areas were also, to a large extent, co-terminus with our pest profile and so it did not make much of a difference.
When we found through negotiations, and negotiations typically take a very long time, found that we are facing difficulties in getting market access to other countries, we tried to understand what the reasons for this were, and it was only then to put pressure and have a science based regulatory system to regulate imports in our country, rather than allow, in a sense, free import, that the Plant Quarantine Order was promulgated‖.
1.14 On being asked to state the reasons leading to the protracted delay on the part of the Government in formulating this vital legislation to protect our agricultural biosecurity, based on the recommendations of the Farmers Commission in their Report submitted to the Government in the year 2005, Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation during the course of a briefing meeting submitted as under:- ―After the Farmers Commission submitted the Report in 2006 in which they had made a recommendation on the establishment of such an authority and that was the year when the bird flu epidemic also had hit India and it was realized that this could not be controlled by imports alone because the bird flu menace did not arise out of regulated imports; it arrived out of migration of birds because plants, diseases, wildlife and animals do not recognize boundaries.
They spread and cross boundaries with impunity.

At that time, the Agriculture Coordination Committee discussed this issue under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister in which it was decided that such an authority needs to be set up; and then a Core Group was set up in the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation under the Chairmanship of the then Additional Secretary which looked into this.
This Core 18 Group examined the set up in the countries that I had mentioned – the US, Australia, New Zealand, and China – and tried to put together a structure for housing this bio-security authority.

Thereafter this was discussed with various Departments and Ministries concerned.

Originally, the idea in the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation was to establish a body which also has authority over human health aspects because the commodity to be imported is the same.
But then, after a lot of discussion with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and because of the fact that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India Act had just come in, which, itself, was an umbrella legislation which governed various other pieces of legislation, it was thought best to confine ourselves to the pyto-sanitary, which is the plant health side, and zoo sanitary which is the animal health side.
Thereafter, there were lots of discussions at various stages with the Department of Animal Husbandry and that is why it has taken us so long to come up with this Bill‖.

1.15 Pleading his case further during the course of oral evidence before the Committee, he stated as under:- ―…..In fact, this idea was being mooted from 2005 or so.

At that time the National Commission on Farmers also had addressed this issue and they had included it in their recommendations as well.
The National Farmers Policy that was announced by the Government in 2007 also contained a statement to the effect that a bio-security arrangement would be organised and set up for the country.

What we originally tried to do was to get all three aspects of SPS under the umbrella of one authority.
That would involve participation from the Ministry of Health to look into sanitary aspects, basically relating to food laws and pesticide residues, to the Department of Agriculture on the phytosanitary aspects, relating to plant health, and to the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries on the zoo sanitary aspects relating to animal health.
However, we could not make much headway with the Department of Health because at that time they had already started formulating the FSSAI which has been set up, which lays down all the standards for import of food stuffs.

So, we had to then think of keeping it outside the ambit of this authority.

After wide ranging consultations with the Department of Animal Husbandry, finally we came out with this Bill.
There was a working group set up in the Ministry of Agriculture under the chairmanship of my predecessor which had representation from the Department of Animal Husbandry, as well as from the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, which studied the systems in major developed countries and then came up with this idea of having a bio-security authority.

After the formulation of the Bill, its circulation and getting comments, it was accepted in 2012 and then submitted to the Parliament‖.
19 1.16 In response to a query regarding details of plant, animal and marine diseases introduced in the country during the last three years, the representative of Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) categorically stated that in the past three years there has not been any example of import of any such kind of pests or plants.
1.17 However, in their Post Evidence Written Replies, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation submitted that one new disease Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome may have ingressed through clandestine movements of pigs across the land border in Mizoram in 2013.

However, Government has taken effective control measures in all North Eastern States, and as such there are no estimates of economic losses.
Ministry of Agriculture has established Plant and Animal Quarantine Stations at various ports of entry to ensure that pests of concern do not enter the country.
1.18 The Department of Agriculture and Cooperation also informed the Committee that the agricultural biosecurity has been breached in the past leading to introduction of exotic pests in our country like coffee berry borer in coffee beans, coconut eriophid mite in coconut and bunchy top in banana from Sri Lanka, wart in potato from the Netherlands, Parthenium weed with wheat from USA and Argemone mexicana weed with mustard seed from USA/Mexico.
A number of plant, animal and marine diseases and pests have been introduced into India through imports of seeds, planting material, livestock and livestock products.

Many weeds such as parthenium, phalaris minor and lanatana camara, have got established in the country and continue to cause enormous economic losses every year.
20 1.19 The Department further informed that The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill would sufficiently bolster our agricultural biosecurity by incorporating the following features: (a) Integration of Plant and Animal Quarantine services.

(b) Regulation for export of plants, animals and their products, aquatic organisms and agriculturally important microorganisms.

(c) Provision to declare ‗controlled area‘ to enable control measures for eradication of such infestation/infection.
(d) Joint action by Agricultural Biosecurity Authority of India and State Governments to meet the challenges of pest outbreaks and conduct pest eradication campaigns.

(e) Declaration of Biosecurity emergency and actions and procedures to deal with it.

(f) Searching premises, checking of conveyances to ensure compliance of phytosanitary and sanitary measures and authority to seize to treat and dispose of plants, animals and their products by Designated Officers of ABAI to prevent spread of pests.
(g) Imprisonment or imposition of fine in case of false declaration and for contravention of provisions with stiffer punishment for import/export violations.

(h) Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts in quarantine matters/decisions.

(i) Provision for appeal before Central Government against any order of the Designated Officer.

(j) Three members of the Authority to be appointed by rotation in alphabetical order to represent the States and UTs.

(k) Assistance in from Customs, Shipping, Airports, Ports etc.
implementation of the provisions in the Bill for better coordination and effective action.

to ABAI (l) Power of the Authority to give directions to importers/exporters (m)Confiscation of plant, animals, their products and other objects imported in violation of the provisions of the Bill 1.20 Idea of setting up biosecurity arrangement for the country was mooted in 2005 and the National Commission on Farmers also addressed this issue.
According to the 21 Department of Agriculture and Cooperation the Farmer‘s Commission Report in 2006 had made a recommendation on the establishment of authority.

Due to this recommendation and bird flu menace, the Agriculture Co-ordination Committee discussed the matter under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister, wherein it decided that such an Authority needs to be set up.
A Core Group was set up in the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation under the Chairmanship of the then Additional Secretary, which examined the set up in different countries.

Thereafter, this was discussed with various Ministries/Departments concerned such as Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Department of Animal Husbandry and came out with the idea of having biosecurity authority.
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation also informed that after the formulation of the Bill, its circulation and getting comments, it was accepted in 2012 and then submitted it to Parliament.

1.21 When Committee desired to know whether the State Governments were consulted in this regard, the Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation replied in the negative.

However, he clarified his stand and stated:- ―….


it is correct that we have not consulted with the State Governments before the drafting of this legislation.

…..what this legislation is trying to do is to basically replace the Central Government, as it exists today, with an autonomous organization.

That is the first and foremost thing that we are trying to do.

Then, we are trying to build up the capacity of this autonomous organization to respond to the needs as they arise dynamically‖.
1.22 He also informed that the proposed Authority would replace the existing directorate of the Central Government.

22 1.23 On being queried by the Committee whether any Central Act be formulated without prior consultation with the States on a subject which is exclusively a State subject, the Secretary responded as under:- ―There should be consultation.

But this subject is not exclusively a State subject.

This is not agriculture.

This is agricultural biosecurity which is not exclusively a State subject.
But, none-the-less I concede your point that we should consult with the States‖.

1.24 The Committee invited views/memoranda/deliberations of the State Governments and experts.

The memoranda of the State Governments so received were sent to the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation for examination and their comments.

Department of Agriculture and Cooperation forwarded their response point- wise to the suggestions of the State Governments/State Agricultural Universities.
In some cases, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation have given reasons for not agreeing with the proposals of State Governments while in some other cases they have stated ‗we may not have any objection‘.

1.25 Apart from the written information and oral evidence by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, the Committee, as already stated, received memoranda from State Governments/Experts/State Agricultural Universities and heard their views on the Bill under consideration.
The major issues which came up before the Committee are discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.

1.26 The Government of Haryana in their memorandum suggested that the term “Office of International des Epizooties‖ used in the Bill may be replaced by the term ―World Organization for Animal Health‖.
23 1.27 Department of Agriculture and Cooperation in their response have conveyed that they do not have any objection as the name of Office of International des Epizooties has been changed to World Organization for Animal Health for official use.

Clause 2- Definitions Clause 2 of the Bill relates to definitions:- 1.28 The Government of Haryana suggested amplification of the definitions in some sub-clauses of clause 2 of the Bill.
The relevant sub-clauses as available in the Bill and suggested modification made by the Government of Haryana are brought out below:- Sub-clauses as existing in the Bill 2(c )(i) ―all kinds of meat and meat products including fresh, chilled and frozen meat, tissue or organs of poultry, pig, sheep and goat;‖ 2(c)(iii) ―embryos, ova and semen of bovine, ovine and caprine;‖ 2(e) "Beneficial organism" means fungi, any organism, bacteria, virus-like viruses, organisms or invertebrate animals, utilised specifically for— (i) the control of a pest; (ii) pollination; (iii) the production of commercially valuable agricultural products; or (iv) any other purposes beneficial to agricultural production and ensuring agricultural biosecurity; including Modifications suggested in the sub- clause ―all kinds of meat and meat products including fresh, chilled and frozen meat, tissue or organs of all livestock species, poultry and marine organisms”.
―embryos, ova and semen of all livestock species, poultry and marine organisms‖.

"Beneficial organism" means organism, including fungi, bacteria, viruses, or virus-like invertebrate animals, utilised specifically for— (i) the control of a pest; (ii) pollination; (iii) valuable agricultural products; or (iv) to ‗any other purposes beneficial agricultural production, and ensuring agricultural and livestock bio-security‘.
the production of commercially organisms any 24 includes cattle, 2(u) "live-stock" horses, canine, camels, sheep, pigs, goat and poultry and any other animal as may be specified by the Central Government by notification; includes bovine, equines "live-stock" cattle, horses, canine, camels, sheep, pigs, goat and poultry and any other animal as may be specified by the Central Government by notification; 1.29 Asked to clarify the reasons for suggesting rephrasing of sub-clause 2(c) (i) as ―all kinds of meat and meat products including fresh, chilled and frozen meat, tissue or organs of all livestock species, poultry and marine organisms‖ a representative of the Government of Haryana submitted before the Committee that from bio-security point of view, whatever comes should be checked for pests and diseases and should go through quarantine.
Poultry, pig and goat are already there.

Insertion of the term ‗livestock‘ would cover all other livestock.

1.30 The representative of Haryana Government further added that similarly, in 2(c)(iii), the words ‗bovine, ovine and caprine‖ should be substituted with the words ―livestock species, poultry and marine organisms‖, as it will become a wider term because it will cover wider items in case they are imported or exported.
1.31 In regard to sub-clause 2e(iv), the representative of the Government of Haryana stated as under; ―I come to 2 (e) which says ―other agricultural products‖, we want here that the word ‗livestock‘ be inserted, like they say beneficial organisms include any organisms like fungi, bacteria, viruses, virus like organisms etc.

Similarly, in 2 (e) (iv), it is mentioned ―any other purposes beneficial to agricultural production‖, if the word ―livestock‖ is added, then it will include livestock also‖.
1.32 Clarifying the position of the Government of Haryana on sub-clause 2(u), the representative of the Government of Haryana during the course of oral deposition stated as under:- 25 ―……The word livestock includes bovines and equines.

We want to broaden the term.

It can be inserted here.

Livestock includes both cattle and horses.

The word equine includes horses and the word bovine includes cattle, can be added.
When in place of horses if equine is used it will not just be horses but would also include ponies and all and in place of cattle if bovine is used, then it will include buffaloes and others.

The rest is fine except this cattle and horses.

Here the words bovine and equine can be added‖.

Clause 2 (s) 1.33 An expert who appeared before the Committee suggested amplification of the definition in sub-clause (s) of clause 2 of the Bill.
The relevant sub-clause as available in the Bill and suggested modification made by the Non-official witness/expert is brought out below:- Sub-clause as existing in the Bill Modification suggested in the sub- clause „infectious or contagious disorders‟ should be re-written as „infectious or contagious diseases / disorders.
"infectious or contagious 2(s) disorders" tick-pest, includes glanders, farcy, scabies and any other parasite, disease or disorder which may be specified by the Central by notification; Government The Department of Agriculture and Cooperation agreed to the aforesaid suggested change in the clause 2(s) of the Bill.

Clause 2 (zo) 1.34 The Government of Haryana suggested amplification of the definition in sub- clause (zo) of clause 2 of the Bill by insertion of the words ―synthetic biology‖.
The 26 relevant sub-clause as available in the Bill and suggested modification made by the Government of Haryana is brought out below:- Sub-clause as existing in the Bill Modification suggested in the sub- 2 (zo) "transgenic material" means any plant or animal origin material transformed genetic engineering and in particular by adding a foreign gene using modern biotechnology‖.
by clause "transgenic material" means any plant or animal origin material transformed by genetic engineering or by synthetic biology and in particular by adding a foreign modern gene biotechnology”.
using 1.35 On being asked to clarify the reasons for State Government‘s suggestion for inclusion of the term ‗synthetic biology‘ to transgenic material, the representative of Haryana Government stated as under:- ―Nowadays, besides genetic engineering living material is being produced, living organisms are being produced by synthetic biology methods by new technology.

So, we suggest that if that word is put here‖……..synthetic biology is creating a new organism itself and this has already been created‖.
1.36 Department of Agriculture and Cooperation in their written submission stated that synthetic biology is insertion of in vitro synthetic DNA into a living cell to develop a cell with modified genetic character to help design and construct biological devices and systems.
According to the Department of Agriculture Cooperation, Clause 2 (zo) provides definition for the term transgenic material to describe any plant or animal origin material transformed using modern biotechnology and subsumes the term synthetic biology.

Hence, there is no need to ‗insert‘ the term synthetic biology in the section dealing with definitions.

27 Clauses 5 & 6 – Domestic Quarantine and Duty to Inform 1.37 Clauses 5 & 6 of the Bill read as under:- ―5.
Except as provided under this Act, or rules and regulations made thereunder, no person shall possess, move, grow, raise, culture, breed or produce any plant, animal and plant product or animal product or any other object, as the case may be, if he has reasons to believe that it is carrying or harbouring, or may carry or harbor, a quarantine pest, or that it is or could be infested or infected with a quarantine pest‖.

―6.
―6.

Where a person becomes aware of the existence of a pest or disease of plant or animal which the person suspects to be a quarantine pest or disease in an area where such pest or disease has not previously been known to exist, it shall be duty of that person to inform immediately the existence of such pest or disease‖.
1.38 When the Committee pointed out that Clauses 5 and 6 can be misused to harass persons with imposition of penalty and how could the people be safeguarded from misuse of the clauses, the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation stated in a written reply that Clause 5 relates to domestic quarantine wherein strong disincentives have been sought to be created against possession, manufacture, growth, raising, culture, breeding or production any plant, animal and plant product or animal product or any other object with the knowledge that it is carrying or harboring a quarantine pest.
Domestic quarantine shall be notified by the Authority from time to time and implementation of measures will involve State Governments.

The implementation of 28 measures and required enforcements shall be as in line with the Notification which would preclude any likelihood of misuse of clause 5.
A person aware of the existence of a quarantine pest or suspected quarantine pest in an area is required to inform the Authority and by the same token any person not privy to the knowledge and information cannot be harassed under provisions of Clause 6.
1.39 When the Committee pointed out that Clause 6 does not indicate who should be informed of the fact when a person becomes aware of the existence of a quarantine pest or disease in an area, the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation stated that the person would inform the Agricultural Biosecurity Authority of an existence of quarantine pest or disease and that rules will be notified in due course to elucidate the procedure for such transmission of information to the Authority.
1.40 During the course of oral evidence when the Committee pointed out that the wording of Clause 6 was not specific and, the Secretary, Agriculture stated that if required they would clarify.

Clause 8 (d) - Composition of Agricultural Biosecurity Authority of India.

1.41 Sub-clause (d) of clause 8 provides for appointment of three members to the Agricultural Biosecurity Authority of India by the Central Government by rotation in the alphabetical order to represent the States and the Union Territories.
1.42 The Government of Karnataka suggested in this connection that the Authority should have a representative of all the States and if the number is huge, a consortia of 29 states from each region like one out of there or four States representing the group on a yearly term may be considered.
1.43 Echoing the views of the Government of Karnataka, the Government of Tamil Nadu submitted that instead of appointing three members on rotational basis, the Central Government may consider appointing at least one member from each State/Union Territory permanently or at least on member from the concerned state may be appointed whenever the Bio-security issue arises, pertinent to the state.

This will ensure more realistic area specific approach in handling bio-security issues.
1.44 Buttressing his point further, the representative of Government of Karnataka while deposing before the Committee stated as under: ―the main idea behind suggesting this is that, it states that the representative states will be selected on a rotation basis in alphabetical order.

So, if that is followed, in fact, the southern region may not be able to get representation.
Instead of selecting in alphabetical order, if it is selected on the basis of groups like and if a state is selected from southern group, then by and large the interest of that state can be highlighted before the Committee or an august body‖.

1.45 The representative of the Government of Tamil Nadu while deposing before the Committee stated as under: ―We suggest that each State has to be included in the list.
For example, if the alphabetical list is going to be followed, then Tamil Nadu or UP will come in the last.

So, we may be getting a chance after 5 or 10 years and if any issue comes up in between, then we will not be able to express our views‖.
1.46 Reacting to the views of the State Governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation in their written submission stated that it will not be advisable to appoint one Member from each State / Union Territory as a 30 Member of Bio-security Authority since this would render the size of the authority unmanageable and militate against prompt decision making with regard to a bio-security threat.
The Authority is proposed to be a representative body, including domain experts and State Government representatives to enable informed and objective decision making on all issues.

However, the suggestion for appointment of representatives of States as member on the basis of geographical regions could be considered.
1.47 On being queried as to how the representation of States can be made in a better manner and not just by deciding alphabetically, the secretary Department of Agriculture and Cooperation during the course of his oral deposition submitted as under; ―It would be difficult to satisfy all the States together at one time because it would not be possible for the Board to comprise, to include representation from all the States, since this would render the size of the authority unmanageable and mitigate against prompt decision making with regard to biosecurity threat.
However, there are certain permutations and combinations that can be resorted to.

We can have representations based upon regions.

For instance, if you can recall in the seeds Bill also, geographical representation has been recommended by this Committee.

All four or five different regions can have representation from each region‖.

He further stated that this can certainly be looked at, so as to allow an opportunity to all States and to satisfy their aspirations.
Clause 22 (5) – Jurisdiction of Court 1.48 Sub-clause (5) of the Clause 22 of the Bill reads as under:- ―If a question arises whether the terms and conditions of service specified in the regulations framed by the Authority in respect of any matter, including remuneration, pension, leave, provident fund and medical benefits, are less favourable than those attached to the post held by an officer or other employee 31 immediately before his transfer to the Authority, the decision of the Central Government in the matter shall be final‖.
1.49 When the attention of the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation was drawn to the fact that this sub-clause would have the effect of debarring the jurisdiction of courts, the Committee were informed that clause 22(5) makes a special provision for the transfer of employees to the Authority after following the detailed procedure laid down in the said section and in case any question arises about the terms and conditions of the service specified in the regulations to be framed by the Authority, the decision of the Central Government shall be final.
However, if any person is aggrieved by the decision of the Central Government, there is no bar for him to approach appropriate court against the final decision of the Central Government.

1.50 During the course of his oral deposition in response to a specific query whether an aggrieved employee can go to the court against the decision of the Central Government, the Secretary stated as under:- ―Certainly, That option is always open.

There has to be a final authority in administrative decision making.
In that case, the final authority should be the Central Government.

That is all that this is saying.

The jurisdiction of the court is always open and will always remain open.

On that, we don‘t think we are competent to suggest anything‖.
Clause 23(b) – Functions of Authority 1.51 Clause 23 relates to the functions of Authority and sub-clause (b) states as under:- ―regulate the export of plants, animals, plant products or animal products and other objects, to meet the importing country's requirements in accordance with 32 international agreements, and to discharge such obligations under those international agreements‖.

1.52 The Government of Punjab suggested addition of word ―facilitate‖ after the word ―regulate‖ in clause 23(b).
1.53 While deposing before the Committee, a representative of the Government of Punjab submitted the following:- ―The issue is related to Clause 23 which is about the functions of the Authority.

There are regulatory functions and there are developmental functions mentioned in this Clause.

So, in Clause 23 (b), it is mentioned ―regulate the export of‖.
We would request that it should be ―regulate and facilitate‖ because at the State level when it comes to the export of material the basic call is taken at the Government of India level.

So, therefore, we would request that in addition to regulation, the development and the facilitation is more important.

We have faced a little issue in this regard.

In the past few years the potato from Punjab is required to be exported to European countries.
But somewhere in early fifties the European countries imposed embargo for potatoes from India because it was suffering from some disease.

So, we had requested the European Union that potatoes from Punjab are not suffering from that particular disease.

So, therefore, that embargo vis-à-vis Punjab should be removed.

But then they asked us to conduct a study.

It was conducted by the Agricultural University and everything was done at the Government of India level.
Now, that case is lying before the European Union in their Headquarters, Brussels for the last three or four years.

We do not know at the State level as to what is required to be done.

So, this Authority should also take into consideration those aspects.

That is our request‖.
1.54 Responding to the suggestion of the Government of Punjab, the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation in their written submission stated that It would not be appropriate to add the word ‗facilitate‘ in Clause 23(b) after the word ‗regulate‘ because the functions of the Authority are regulatory in nature which may or may not facilitate import or export of a particular plant, animal, plant product or animal product and other objects with a potential to jeopardize the Biosecurity of India or its foreign trading 33 partners.
There are several plants, the entry or import of which into India is prohibited and is likely to remain so because of the phytosanitary risks associated with them.

Similarly, several countries also have a negative list of plants and animals and their products.

Therefore, it will not be advisable to insert the word facilitate in Clause 23(b).
1.55 On being asked to comment upon the suggestion of the Government of Punjab, the Secretary, Agriculture during his oral deposition stated as under:- ―There is a huge difference between ‗regulation‘ and ‗facilitation‘.

There will be instances where we will not facilitate.

In fact, there would be instances where we would disallow exports or regulate under very strict conditions.

Facilitate would not probably be the right word here.
This regulation means whatever export is done, is done as per the prescribed procedures and protocols keeping in view the extant policy of the Government.

That would cater to all kinds of dispensation.

But facilitation would carry a different connotation which can later cause a problem to us‖.
Clause 23(v) – Diagnostic Laboratories 1.56 According to Sub-clause(v) of Clause 23, the function of the Authority shall be to establish and maintain diagnostic laboratories related to pests and diseases of plants and animals.

1.57 The Government of Haryana suggested insertion of the words ―internationally accredited‖ before the words ―diagnostic laboratories‖ in the above sub-clause.

1.58 The Department of Agriculture and Cooperation was not agreeable to the said suggestion.
1.59 When enquired as to how the standard and quality of laboratories would be ensured if there is no accreditation of diagnostic laboratories, the Department of 34 Agriculture and Cooperation in their written reply stated that the provision in Clause 23(v) is an enabling provision to establish and maintain diagnostic laboratories.

Reliance should be placed more on national rather than international accreditation in the interests of national Biosecurity.
Details pertaining to accreditation will be provided in the rules.

It may be mentioned that at present major Plant Quarantine Laboratories are accredited under the National System of NABL or ISO Certification system and the standard and quality of laboratories in the animal health sector are ensured by following the testing procedures of the OIE (World Animal Health Organization).

Therefore, Clause in the draft Bill is appropriate.
1.60 The Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation stated in this connection during the course of oral evidence stated as under:- ―If I may submit, does it mean that if we establish a diagnostic laboratory and it does not get international accreditation, it will be invalid in the eyes of law.

This is something that actually people to whom we export or people from whom we import might be suggesting.

It is not for us.
It is not for us.

I don‘t think it is in our interest to be prescribing what kind of certification or what kind of protocols our labs should have‖.
Clause 29 – Recovery of expenses from State Government 1.61 Clause 29 states:- ―Where the State Government fails to repay the costs of any measure taken under this Chapter, such costs shall be recoverable from the State Government in the manner provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the recovery of fines imposed by a Court, as if such costs were a fine imposed by a Court‖.
35 1.62 A representative of the Government of Punjab during the course of oral evidence before the Committee, while opposing the provisions of the said clause submitted as under:- ―Here it is mentioned that when the Authority from the Government of India takes direct action then the recovery of that expenditure shall be made from the State Government.

This recovery will be made in such a harsher manner as is given in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

So, this is too much.


What is Code of Criminal Procedure?

They say, either he has to be arrested or his property has to be sold.

So, these are the things where they are going beyond the scheme of things in the Constitution which have been prescribed‖.
1.63 Echoing the sentiments of the Government of Punjab, a representative of the Government of Tamil Nadu during the course of his oral deposition submitted:- ―We feel that the Controlled Area‘s expenditure can be maintained by the Central Government and not by the State Government.

I am saying this because no State can be held responsible for it.
For example, if I want to bring seeds of Brinjal from Tamil Nadu to Delhi, it is possible, but in foreign countries each State is controlled by a quarantine border, which we do not have here.

So, in the absence of such a facility, I think that the Central Government can finance the entire expenditure and the punishment / fine aspect can be removed‖.
1.64 On being asked to clarify why such stringent provision has been made for recovery of costs from State Government, the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation submitted that the State Government is to take measures to contain and eradicate the quarantine pests from an area where such pest gets established in the country.

Where the State fails to take immediate action as advised by the Authority, the Authority themselves have to take the measures to deal with the situation.
Therefore, the cost involved in such an operation would have to be recovered by the Authority from the State concerned.

If the State is not willing to reimburse the cost to the Authority, the Authority needs an enabling provision to recover such costs as per the laws of the 36 country.

While drafting the Bill, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was found appropriate by the Ministry of Law for the purpose.
Further, it is relevant to mention that the State Government may seek exemption from whole or part of the reimbursement of the cost from the Central Government giving reasons to the satisfaction of the Central Government for such exemption as per Clause 26(2) of the Bill and in such a case the Central Government shall reimburse the cost to the Authority.
1.65 During the course of oral evidence, on being enquired as to why such a stringent provision has been made for recovery of costs from the State Government, the Secretary submitted as under:- ―I would like to cite a small example here.

If there is an outbreak of a pest in any State, it is the responsibility of the State Government to undertake such control measures as are necessary to confine and then wipe out that infestation.
If the State Government does not do it and the disease assumes such proportions that it spreads across the boundaries of the State, then this Authority is required to step in and incur huge expenditure for control arrangements and it is under those circumstances that it is proposed that the expenditure incurred by this Authority on these measures, due to negligence or lack of effectiveness of the State machinery, that the costs will be recovered from the States.
Otherwise, the State Government will sit back and wait for the Authority to take any pest control measures anywhere and they will wash their hands off the entire process‖.

1.66 When the Committee further enquired about the procedure of recovery of fines imposed by a court as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Secretary submitted that he would get back to the Committee on this specific point.
Clause 75 – Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts 1.67 The clause 75 of the Bill states:- ―No civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Authority or Central Government is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no 37 injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Authority and the Central Government in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act‖.
1.68 When the Committee drew the attention of the Secretary, Agriculture to the above clause which debars the jurisdiction of the court, the witness submitted:- ―I take your point.

I accept that.
I accept that.

The intention here is to disallow or to ensure that court does not interfere when we take immediate action where there is emergency of any kind, where the jurisdiction of the courts and to allow the intervention of the court which may prove to be of long term damage to the plant or animal health or biosecurity of the country.

It is in respect of those areas that this bar has been provided‖.

He also accepted that in this matter codification is required.
1.69 When asked to justify the incorporation of this clause in the Bill, the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation in their post-evidence reply submitted that the intent of the Clause 75 is to avoid litigation in respect of technical and scientific decisions taken by the Authority and the Central Government to protect agricultural bio-security of the country from the risks that may arise from import of plants, animals, plant products, animal products and other objects as well as technical matters arising as a result of export of plants, animals, plant products, animal products and other objects.
Hence, the Clause 75 of the bill is proposed to be amended as under:- ―No civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter related to decision taken by the Authority or the Central Government to protect agricultural bio- security of the country while regulating import or export of plants, animals, plant products, animal products and other objects which the Authority or Central government is empowered by or under this act to determine and no injunction 38 shall be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the authority and the Central Government in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this act.‖ 39 PART –II RECOMMENDATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE 1.
The Committee note that setting up of „The Agricultural Biosecurity Authority‟ was first mooted by the National Commission of Farmers in their Report of 2005.

However, it has taken more than seven years for the Government to come up with the legislation for the purpose.
The Committee recommend that once the Committee‟s Report on the Bill is presented to Parliament, no time should be lost in getting this Bill enacted into an Act, and thereafter immediate follow-up action be taken for establishment and functioning of the National Agricultural Biosecurity Authority.

2.
2.

The Committee have been informed that there was no prior consultation with State Governments before introduction of the Bill in Parliament, inspite of the fact that agriculture is a State subject and States are the implementing agencies.

The Committee have invited views of State Governments, experts and stakeholders and most of the suggestions received from them have been agreed to by the Government.
The Committee feel that there should be wider consultations with all relevant stakeholders by the Government before introduction of Bills in Parliament, particularly, when the subject-matter of the Bill falls under the jurisdiction of “States”.

40 3.

The Committee recommend that the term „Office of International de Epizooties’ be replaced with „World Organization for Animal Health‟ wherever it appears in the Bill.

4.
4.

The Committee find that modifications suggested by the Government of Haryana in various sub-clauses of clause 2 of the Bill are meant to broaden the coverage of species under the definitions.

The Department of Agriculture and Cooperation have also agreed to those changes.
The Committee, accordingly recommend that the following sub-clauses of clause 2 of the Bill be amended as shown below:- - Sub-clause 2 (c) (i) be reworded as “all kinds of meat and meat products including fresh, chilled and frozen meat, tissue or organs of - - all livestock species, poultry and marine organisms”.

Sub-clause 2 (c) (iii) be reworded as “embryos, ova and semen of all livestock species, poultry and marine organisms”.
Sub-clause 2 (e) (iv) be reworded as „any other purposes beneficial to agricultural production, and ensuring agricultural and livestock bio-security‟.

- Sub-clause 2 (u) be reworded as “livestock” includes bovine equine, cattle, horses, canine, camels, sheep, pigs, goat and poultry and any other animal as may be specified by the Central Government by notification‟.

41 5.

Insertion of the word „disease‟ in the term “infectious or contagious disorders” will make the term broad-based and inclusive.
The Committee, therefore, recommend that the term “infectious or contagious disorders” in sub- clause (s) of clause 2 of the Bill be amplified as - „infectious or contagious diseases / disorders”.

6.

The Committee observe that the clause 6 of the Bill firmly puts the onus on any individual to inform immediately on being aware of the existence of a pest or disease of plant or animal but does not indicate as to whom the information should be given.
The Committee desire that the lacuna in the clause be addressed.

7.

Clause 8 (d) of the Bill envisages, appointment of 3 members by rotation in the alphabetical order to represent the States / Union Territories in the proposed Agricultural Biosecurity Authority of India.

The Committee agree with the Government‟s view that inclusion of one member from each State/Union Territory may render the size of the Authority unmanageable.
They, however, feel that there should be proper and balanced representation of States in the Authority.

The Committee, therefore, recommend that there should be at least one representative from each group of States from different regions of the country and clause 8 (d) accordingly be amended.
The Committee further recommend that there should be an enabling provision in the sub-clause to co-opt a member from the concerned State(s), if and when there is an outbreak of pest or disease of plant or animal in the State(s).

42 8.

The Committee feel that the language used in a statute should not give an impression that the jurisdiction of court is being ousted.
The Committee, therefore, desire that the words “the decision of the Central Government in the matter shall be final” in clause 22(5) be substituted with words “the matter shall be decided by the Central Government”.

9.

The Committee feel that a very stringent provision has been made in clause 29 of the Bill regarding recovery of expenses from the State Government.
The Committee are of the view that if the provision of recovery costs is kept in the legislation, the State Government(s) may not bring out the cases of any outbreak of pest(s) / diseases of plants and animals before the authority proactively and may also not take necessary quarantine measures.

The Committee, therefore, desire that clause 29 of the Bill be deleted.

10.
10.

The Department of Agriculture and Cooperation have agreed to amend clause 75 of the Bill to restrict the scope of the clause only to matters relating to protection of agricultural bio-security of the country while regulating import or export of plants, animals, plant products, animal products, and other objects.
The Committee are of the view that debarring the jurisdiction of the entire judiciary in the matter will be in violation of Constitutional provisions and desire that the clause 75 of the Bill be so amended that the jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court is not debarred in any respect.
NEW DELHI; 19 December, 2013 28 Agrahayana, 1935 (Saka) BASUDEB ACHARIA Chairman, Committee on Agriculture 43 ANNEXURE-I LOK SABHA ------ CORRIGENDA to THE AGRICULTURAL BIOSECURITY BILL, 2013 [To be/As introduced in Lok Sabha] 1.

Page (i), in the Arrangement of Clauses, in clause 11,- for "Service of the Director" read "service of Director" 2.
Page (iii), in the Arrangement of Clauses, in clause 73,- for "of the Authority" read "of Authority" 3.

Page 14, line 17, - for "the expression" read "the expressions," 4.

Page 17, line 42, - for "or animals which is the import of" read "or animals, the import of" 5.

Page 17, line 43, - for "section 3 or prohibited" read "section 3 or which is prohibited" 6.

Page 24, line 13, - for "and the allowances" read "and fee and allowances" 96 7.
Page 29, line 1 from the bottom,- for "article 117(1) (3)" read " article 117(1) and (3)" 8.

Page 30, line 4, - for "used in the the" read “used in the” 9.

Page 32, line 18 from the bottom, - for "of out clause (1)" read "of sub-clause (1)" 10.

Page 38, line 26, - for "organization" read "organisation" 11.

Page 39, line 12 from the bottom, - for "realization" read "realisation" 12.

Page 40, line 11, - for "constitute" read "constituted" 13.
Page 43, line 7, - for "this Bill," read "the proposed legislation," 14.

Page 43, line 14, - for "under this Bill, or" read "under the proposed legislation, or" 97 15.

Page 44, lines 28 and 29, - for "under this Bill or any" read "under the proposed legislation or any" 16.

Page 44, line 12 from the bottom,- for "of Central" read "of the Central" 17.

Page 45, line 15 from the bottom, - for "by Authority" read "by the Authority" 18.
Page 45, line 14 from the bottom, - for “under this Bill.” read "under the proposed legislation."

19.

Page 48, line 15, - for "40; (i) form" read "41; (i) form" 20.

Page 48, line 17, - for "clause 46; (j) form" read "clause 47; (j) form" NEW DELHI; March 7, 2013______ Phalguna 16, 1934 (Saka) 98 LIST OF STATE GOVERNMENTS/UNION TERRITORIES WHICH SUBMITTED WRITTEN MEMORANDA TO THE COMMITTEE.

ANNEXURE-II SL.

NO.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

1.

2.

3.

4, 5.

6.


STATE GOVERNMENTS Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Chhattisgarh Goa Haryana Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh UNION TERRITORIES Andaman and Nicobar Chandigarh Dadra and Nagar Haveli Daman and Diu Delhi Puducherry 99 ANNEXURE-III LIST OF INDIVIDUALS/EXPERTS/ORGANISATIONS WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN MEMORANDA TO THE COMMITTEE.
NAME OF INDIVIDUALS/EXPERTS/ORGANISATIONS Dr. Dishanta Dutta, Sivasagar, Assam Hemabja Panda, Bhubaneswar Dr. Krishan Narayan Pandey , Rajajeepuram, Lucknow Grama Shree Farmers Club, Kottayam, Kerala Shri S. Balwinder Singh, Malout, Punjab Dr. Dayamoy Mondal, , Bhubaneswar Shri Sunil Singh, Faridabad Shri R. Santhanam, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi Prof. (Dr.) Mahendra Pal Yadav, Gurgaon Dr. Susanta Kr.

Mukherjee, West Bengal Shri Rajendra Kumar Aggarwal, Retd.
Economist, RBI, Ghaziabad, Prof. Prem Kumar Uppal, Narayanpur, Punjab Dr. S.G. Ramachandra, Bangalore Shri Rajinder Singh, Bhiwani Dr. K.C.

Sunny, Trivandrum Shri Pramod Sahu, Ahmedabad SL.

NO.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

100 ANNEXURE-IV LIST OF STATE GOVERNMENTS WHO TENDERED ORAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE SL.

NO.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


STATE GOVERNMENTS Andhra Pradesh Haryana Karnataka Punjab Tamil Nadu 101 ANNEXURE-V LIST OF INDIVIDUALS/EXPERTS/ORGANISATIONS WHO APPEARED FOR PERSONAL HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.

NAME OF INDIVIDUALS/EXPERTS/ORGANISATIONS Prof. M.P.

Yadav 102 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2012-13) MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH SITTING OF THE COMMITTEE APPENDIX-I The Committee sat on Tuesday, the 21st May, 2013 from 1500 hours to 1635 hours in Room No.

‗G-074‘, Parliament Library Building, New Delhi.


PRESENT Shri Basudeb Acharia - Chairman MEMBERS LOK SABHA Shri Narayansingh Amlabe Smt.

Ashwamedh Devi Smt.

Paramjit Kaur Gulshan Shri P. Kumar Dr.

(Smt.)

Botcha Jhansi Lakshmi Sardar Sukhdev Singh Libra Shri Jagdish Singh Rana Shri Rajaiah Siricilla Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey ‗Vinnu‘ Shri Hukamdeo Narayan Yadav RAJYA SABHA Shri Satyavrat Chaturvedi Smt.

Mohsina Kidwai Dr. K.V.P.

Ramachandra Rao Shri Rajpal Singh Saini Shri Darshan Singh Yadav 103 2.

3.
3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

SECRETARIAT 1.

2.

3.

Shri R.S.

Kambo - Joint Secretary Shri.

P.C.

Koul - Director Shri C. Vanlalruata - Deputy Secretary WITNESSES MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION) S.No.

NAME OF THE OFFICER DESIGNATION 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Shri Ashish Bahuguna Shri A.K.

Srivastava Shri Utpal Kumar Singh Dr. A.K.

Sinha Dr. P.S.

Chandurkar Shri D.D.K.


Sharma Secretary (A&C) Additional Secretary Joint Secretary Plant Protection Adviser Consultant Addl.

Plant Protection Adviser DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING & FISHERIES 1.

Shri Rajbir Singh Rana Joint Secretary 2.

At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the members to the Sitting.

The Committee, thereafter, deliberated for a while on the subject before them.

The Chairman, then directed the witnesses be ushered in.

(At about 1510 hrs.
(At about 1510 hrs.

the witnesses were ushered in).

3.

The Chairman welcomed the witnesses and asked them to introduce themselves.

The witnesses briefed the Committee on the various aspects regarding the ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘.

Thereafter, the members sought several clarifications pertaining to the abovesaid Bill including ramifications of some of the proposed clauses and the witnesses responded to them.
Based on the responses of the witnesses and 104 the implications of some of the clauses of the Bill the Committee also decided to seek the views of State Governments on it.

4.

Before the Sitting concluded, the Chairman thanked the witnesses for appearing before the Committee and sharing their views on the subject.

A verbatim record of the proceedings has been kept separately.

The Committee then adjourned.


105 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2012-13) MINUTES OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SITTING OF THE COMMITTEE APPENDIX-II The Committee sat on Monday, the 15th July, 2013 from 1500 hours to 1545 hours in Room No.

‗62‘ (F/F), Parliament House, New Delhi.

PRESENT Shri Basudeb Acharia - Chairman MEMBERS LOK SABHA 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Shri Narayansingh Amlabe Shri H.D.


Devegowda Shri Anant Kumar Hegde Shri Premdas Katheria Shri P. Kumar Sardar Sukhdev Singh Libra Dr. Jyoti Mirdha Smt.

Bhavana Gawali (Patil) Shri Rajaiah Siricilla Shri Patel Kishanbhai V. Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey ‗Vinnu‘ Shri Hukamdeo Narayan Yadav RAJYA SABHA Shri Satyavrat Chaturvedi Shri A. Elavarasan Smt.

Mohsina Kidwai Dr. K.V.P.

Ramachandra Rao Shri Parshottam Khodabhai Rupala 106 19.

20.

21.

22.
20.

21.

22.

Shri Rajpal Singh Saini Shri Shivanand Tiwari Shri S. Thangavelu Shri Darshan Singh Yadav SECRETARIAT 1.

2.

3.

Shri R.S.

Kambo - Joint Secretary Shri.

P.C.

Koul - Director Shri C. Vanlalruata - Deputy Secretary 2.

At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members to the Sitting of the Committee.
Thereafter, the Committee took up for consideration the 08 Memoranda received from State Governments / Union Territory Administrations and 15 Memoranda received from other Experts/Stakeholders on ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘.

3.

After some discussion, a few memoranda were shortlisted.
The Committee also decided that the comments of the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation may be obtained in the meantime on the memoranda submitted by the State Governments / Union Territory Administrations.

The Committee also considered the request of a State Government for extension of time in submission of its views.

It was decided that fifteen more days may be granted for the purpose.
The Committee also desired that the Secretariat may also convey the fact of extension in date of submission of memorandum to all other State Governments/Union Territory Administrations who were yet to submit their views/suggestions.

The Committee then adjourned.

107 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2012-13) APPENDIX-III MINUTES OF THE THIRTY-SIXTH SITTING OF THE COMMITTEE The Committee sat on Thursday, the 01 August, 2013 from 1500 hours to 1640 hours in Room No.

‗62, Parliament House, New Delhi.


PRESENT Shri Basudeb Acharia - Chairman MEMBERS LOK SABHA 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Shri Narayansingh Amlabe Shri Sanjay Singh Chauhan Smt.

Ashwamedh Devi Shri Premdas Katheria Shri P.Kumar Dr.

(Smt.)

Botcha Jhansi Lakshmi Sardar Sukhdev Singh Libra Dr. Jyoti Mirdha Smt.
Bhavana Gawali (Patil) Shri Rajaiah Siricilla Shri Hukamdeo Narayan Yadav RAJYA SABHA Shri Satyavrat Chaturvedi Shri Dharmendra Pradhan Shri Rajpal Singh Saini Shri Shivanand Tiwari 108 SECRETARIAT 1.

2.

3.

Shri R.S.

Kambo - Joint Secretary Shri.

P.C.

Koul - Director Shri C. Vanlalruata - Deputy Secretary LIST OF WITNESSES GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sri M. Sudhakar, Special Secretary, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Dr. S.J.
Dr. S.J.

Rehman, Principal Scientist Biological Control, Acharya N.G.

Ranga Agriculture University, Hyderabad.

GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Dhillon, Dean, College of Basic Sciences & Humanities, CCS, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar.

(i) (ii) (i) 2.

At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members to the Sitting of the Committee.

Thereafter, the Chairman directed that the witnesses be ushered in.

(At about 1505 hrs.
(At about 1505 hrs.

the representatives of Government of Andhra Pradesh were ushered in).

3.

The Chairman welcomed the witnesses to the Sitting and asked them to introduce themself and brief the Committee about the views and suggestions of the Government of Andhra Pradesh on ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘.

The 109 Members sought several clarifications on the various aspects of the Bill.

The witnesses duly responded to them.

4.


The Chairman, thereafter, thanked the witnesses for appearing before the Committee as well as for furnishing valuable information desired by them on the Bill.

He also directed them to send the replies to the queries which could not be clarified by them during the Sitting to the Committee Secretariat by 08 August, 2013, positively.

(At around 1605 hrs.

the witness withdrew and the representative of Government of Haryana, was ushered in) 5.
The Chairman welcomed the witness to the Sitting and asked her to introduce herself and brief the Committee about the views and suggestions of the Government of Haryana on ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘.

The members sought several clarifications from the witness on the Memorandum submitted by the State Government previously.

The witness duly responded to them alongwith the justification for the changes proposed in the Bill.

6.
6.

The Chairman, thereafter, thanked the witness for appearing before the Committee as well as for furnishing valuable information to the Committee on the Subject.

The witness then withdrew.

A verbatim record of the proceedings has been kept separately.

The Committee then adjourned.

110 APPENDIX-IV COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2012-13) MINUTES OF THE THIRTY-SEVENTH SITTING OF THE COMMITTEE The Committee sat on Wednesday, the 07 August, 2013 from 1500 hours to 1545 hours in Room No.
‗62‘ (F/F), Parliament House, New Delhi.

******** PRESENT Shri Basudeb Acharia - Chairman MEMBERS LOK SABHA 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Sardar Sukhdev Singh Libra Dr. Jyoti Mirdha Shri Rajaiah Siricilla Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey „Vinnu‟ Shri Hukamdeo Narayan Yadav RAJYA SABHA Shri Dharmendra Pradhan Shri Parshottam Khodabhai Rupala Shri Rajpal Singh Saini Shri S. Thangavelu Shri Darshan Singh Yadav 111 SECRETARIAT 1.

2.

3.

Shri R.S.

Kambo Shri P.C.


Koul Shri C. Vanlalruata - - - Joint Secretary Director Deputy Secretary 2.

At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members to the Sitting of the Committee.

The Committee then took up Memorandum No.

08 regarding extension of time for examination and Report on ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013.

3.
3.

After deliberating amongst themselves the Committee felt that it would not be possible for them to complete the examination of the Bill in their current term, which is to end on 30 August, 2013, as they had still to hear the views of the State Governments of Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

Apart from that the Committee have also to take Oral Evidence of non-official expert and Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, the nodal Department of the Bill.
They, therefore, requested the Chairman to apprise the Hon‘ble Speaker, Lok Sabha on their behalf of this fact and request her to grant extension of time till the first week of Winter Session 2013 for presentation of the Report on the Bill by their successor Committee.

*4. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx The Committee then adjourned.

*Matter not related to this Report.


112 APPENDIX-V COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2012-13) MINUTES OF THE THIRTY-EIGHTH SITTING OF THE COMMITTEE The Committee sat on Monday, the 26 August, 2013 from 1500 hours to 1540 hours in Committee Room ‗A‘, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

******** PRESENT Shri Basudeb Acharia - Chairman MEMBERS LOK SABHA 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Shri Narayansingh Amlabe Smt.

Ashwamedh Devi Smt.


Paramjit Kaur Gulshan Sardar Sukhdev Singh Libra RAJYA SABHA Shri Satyavrat Chaturvedi Shri Dharmendra Pradhan Shri Darshan Singh Yadav 113 SECRETARIAT 1.

2.

3.

Shri R.S.

Kambo Shri P.C.

Koul Shri C. Vanlalruata - - - Joint Secretary Director Deputy Secretary *2. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 3.
It was, however, felt that since orders of Speaker, Lok Sabha had been obtained under Direction 60 of the Directions by Speaker, Lok Sabha for facilitating the interaction with the State Governments and the representative of the State Government of Karnataka had come all the way from Bengaluru to tender evidence before the Committee, the views of the representative of State Government on ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘ be heard.

The Chairman then directed that the witness be ushered in.
(At about 1515 hrs.

the witness was ushered in) 4.

After the customary introduction, the witness briefed the Committee on the State Government‘s view on the Bill under consideration.

He then responded to the queries raised by Hon‘ble Members.

(The witness then withdrew) The Committee then adjourned.

(A verbatim record of the proceedings has been kept separately) *Matter not related to this Report.
114 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2013-14) MINUTES OF THE FOURTH SITTING OF THE COMMITTEE APPENDIX-VI The Committee sat on Tuesday, the 08 October, 2013 from 1100 hours to 1245 hours in Room No.

‗53‘, Parliament House, New Delhi.

PRESENT Shri Shivanand Tiwari - In the Chair MEMBERS LOK SABHA 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

09.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Smt.

Ashwamedh Devi Smt.


Paramjit Kaur Gulshan Shri Premdas Katheria Shri P. Kumar Sardar Sukhdev Singh Libra Shri Devji M. Patel Shri Rajaiah Siricilla RAJYA SABHA Shri N. Balaganga Shri Satyavrat Chaturvedi Smt.

Mohsina Kidwai Shri Dharmendra Pradhan Dr. K.V.P.

Ramachandra Rao Shri Rajpal Singh Saini Shri S. Thangavelu Shri Darshan Singh Yadav 115 SECRETARIAT 1.

2.

3.

Shri A. Louis Martin Smt.


Abha Singh Yaduvanshi Shri C. Vanlalruata - - - Joint Secretary Director Deputy Secretary 2.

The Committee chose Shri Shivanand Tiwari, MP (Rajya Sabha) to act as Chairman for the Sitting under Rule 258 (3) of the Rules and Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha in the absence of Chairman.

3.
3.

Thereafter, the representatives of the State Government of Punjab named below were ushered in for evidence in connection with the examination of ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘ :- 1.

Shri K.S.

Pannu 2.

Dr. B.S.

Sidhu 3.

Dr. T.S.

Thind - - - Secretary, Agriculture Commissioner, Agriculture Emeritus Scientist, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 4.
The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the State Government of Punjab and apprised them of the provisions of Directions 55(1) and 58 of the Directions by Speaker regarding confidentiality of the proceedings of the Committee.

The witnesses presented the views of the State Government on ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘.
In addition to the points already made in their written Memorandum, the witnesses suggested that the function of the Agricultural Biosecurity Authority of India should be not only to regulate but also to facilitate exports and accordingly suggested 116 insertion of the word ‗facilitate‘ in Clause 23(b).

The Members queried the witnesses in regard to their suggestions relating to other aspects of the Bill.

The witnesses clarified the same.


The Chairman thanked the witnesses for appearing before the Committee and sharing their views.

The witnesses then withdrew.

Thereafter, Prof. M.P.

Yadav, President, National Academy of Veterinary Sciences was ushered in.

5.

The Chairman welcomed Shri M.P.

Yadav and apprised him of the provisions of Directions 55(1) and 58 of the Directions by Speaker regarding confidentiality of the proceeding of the Committee.
The expert presented his views on ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘ and Members sought clarifications on the suggestions made by him including the need for having separate Agricultural Biosecurity Authority for Plants and Animals (including fish) to which the witness responded in detail.

The Chairman thanked the expert for appearing before the Committee and sharing his views in person.

The expert then withdrew.


Thereafter, the representatives of the State Government of Tamil Nadu named below were ushered in :- 1.

2.

Dr. M. Rajendran Dr. K. Ramaraju 3.

Dr. K. Rajamani Director, Agriculture Director, Centre for Plant Protection Studies, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Professor (Horti.)

Tamil Nadu Agricultural University - - - 117 6.


The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the State Government of Tamil Nadu and apprised them of the provisions of Directions 55(1) and 58 of the Directions by Speaker regarding confidentiality of the proceedings of the Committee.

The witnesses presented the views of the State Government of Tamil Nadu on ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘.

They stressed upon the need for membership of all States in the proposed Agricultural Biosecurity Authority.
They also stated that the clause 29 of the Bill regarding recovery of expenses from State Governments is very harsh and should be suitably amended.

The Members sought several clarifications to which the witnesses duly responded.

Thereafter, the Chairman thanked the witnesses for appearing before the Committee and sharing their views.

A verbatim record of the proceedings has been kept separately.

The Committee then adjourned.


118 APPENDIX-VII COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2013-14) MINUTES OF THE SIXTH SITTING OF THE COMMITTEE The Committee sat on Monday, the 11th November, 2013 from 1500 hours to 1615 hours in Committee Room ‗C‘ (G/F), Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

******** PRESENT Shri Basudeb Acharia - Chairman 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13 14.

15.

16.

17.

MEMBERS LOKSABHA Shri Sanjay Singh Chauhan Smt.


Ashwamedh Devi Shri Premdas Katheria Shri P. Kumar Sardar Sukhdev Singh Libra Smt.

Bhavana Gawali (Patil) Shri Patel Kishanbhai V. Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey ‗Vinnu‘ RAJYA SABHA Shri N. Balaganga Smt.

Mohsina Kidwai Dr. K.V.P.

Ramachandra Rao Shri Parshottam Khodabhai Rupala Shri Rajpal Singh Saini Shri S. Thangavelu Shri Shivanand Tiwari Shri Darshan Singh Yadav 119 SECRETARIAT 1.

2.

3.

Shri A. Louis Martin Shri T.H.


Rao Shri C. Vanlalruata - - - Joint Secretary Additional Director Deputy Secretary *2.

At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members to the Sitting of the Committee.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx.

*(i) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx *(ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx *3. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 4.
Thereafter, representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and Cooperation), were ushered in for evidence in connection with examination of ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘.

The following were present :- WITNESSES MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION) S.No.

NAME OF THE OFFICER DESIGNATION 1.

Shri Ashish Bahuguna Secretary 2.

3.

Shri A.K.


Srivastava Additional Secretary Shri Utpal Kumar Singh Joint Secretary DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DAIRYING AND FISHERIES Shri Rajbir Singh Rana Joint Secretary 120 INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Dr. P.K.

Chakrabarty Assistant Director General NATIONAL BUREAU OF PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES 1.

2.

Dr. K.C.

Bansal Director Dr. P.S.

Chandurkar Consultant DIRECTORATE OF PLANT PROTECTION QUARANTINE ANDSTORAGE 1.

2.

Dr. S.N.
2.

Dr. S.N.

Sushil Plant Protection Advisor Shri D.D.K.

Sharma Additional Plant Protection Advisor The Chairman welcomed the representatives and apprised them of the provisions of the Directions 55(1) and 58 of the Directions by the Speaker.

5.
5.

Thereafter, the Committee enquired from the representatives of the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation the reasons for inordinate delay in formulating ‗The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‘, that aims to strengthen the plant and animal biosecurity mechanisms, based on the recommendation of the Commission of Farmers (2007).

The Committee also enquired whether it would be appropriate to have an offshore animal quarantine station for seized animals having evidence of exotic disease/disease agent.
The Secretary, DAC responded to the queries.
The Committee also discussed whether the proposed Agriculture Biosecurity Authority may impinge upon the authority and jurisdiction of National Bio-diversity Authority and a possibility of confrontation between their respective role and responsibilities; instances of plant, animal and marine diseases introduced in the country during the last three years and 121 economic losses suffered on this account; a separate authority for animals (inclusive of fish) and plant diseases; possibility of inclusion of the term bio-products under clause 2 of the Bill; membership of the Authority on regional basis; accreditation of diagnostic laboratories; recovery of cost from State Governments, etc.
The representatives of the DAC responded to the queries.

Thereafter, the Chairman desired that the representatives may send written replies to the points within a week which could not be covered during the evidence.

A verbatim record of the proceedings has been kept separately.

The Committee then adjourned.

_____________________________________________________________________ *Matter not related to this Report.
122 APPENDIX-VIII COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2013-14) MINUTES OF THE TWELFTH SITTING OF THE COMMITTEE ******** The Committee sat on Monday, the 09 December, 2013 from 1500 hours to 1810 hours in Committee Room ‗B‘ (G/F), Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT Shri Basudeb Acharia - Chairman MEMBERS LOKSABHA 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Shri Sanjay Singh Chauhan Smt.


Ashwamedh Devi Shri Premdas Katheria Sardar Sukhdev Singh Libra Dr. Jyoti Mirdha Shri Rajaiah Siricilla Shri Hukumdeo Narayan Yadav RAJYA SABHA 9.

10.

Shri S. Thangavelu Shri Darshan Singh Yadav 123 SECRETARIAT 1.

2.

3.

4.

Shri A. Louis Martin Smt.

Abha Singh Yaduvanshi Shri T.H.

Rao Shri C. Vanlalruata - - - - Joint Secretary Director Additional Director Deputy Secretary 2.
At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members to the Sitting of the Committee.

The Committee first took up for consideration Memorandum No.07 regarding progress of examination of ―The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‖ and proposing additional time required for preparation of Report thereon.

The Committee noted that time available for presentation of the Report on the Bill was till the first week of the Winter Session.
The Committee after considering all aspects decided to seek extension of time till the last day of the current Winter Session for presentation of Report on the Bill.

*3. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx *4. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx *5. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx The Committee then adjourned.

*Matter not related to this Report.


124 APPENDIX-IX COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (2013-14) MINUTES OF THE THIRTEENTH SITTING OF THE COMMITTEE ******** The Committee sat on Thursday, the 19 December, 2013 from 1000 hours to 1030 hours in Committee Room ‗D‘ (G/F), Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT Shri Basudeb Acharia - Chairman MEMBERS LOKSABHA Shri Narayansingh Amlabe Shri Sanjay Singh Chauhan Smt.

Ashwamedh Devi Smt.

Paramjit Kaur Gulshan Shri Premdas Katheria Smt.


Botcha Jhansi Lakshmi Dr. Jyoti Mirdha Shri Kachhadia Naranbhai Shri Rajaiah Siricilla Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey ‗Vinnu‘ Shri Hukumdeo Narayan Yadav RAJYA SABHA Smt.

Mohsina Kidwai Shri Shivanand Tiwari 125 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

SECRETARIAT 1.

2.

3.

4.

Shri A. Louis Martin Smt.

Abha Singh Yaduvanshi Shri T.H.

Rao Shri C. Vanlalruata - - - - Joint Secretary Director Additional Director Deputy Secretary 2.
At the outset the Chairman welcomed the members to the Sitting of the Committee.

The Committee, thereafter, took up the draft Report on ―The Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013‖ pertaining to the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture & Co-operation) for consideration.

3.
3.

Para 9 of Part II of the draft report envisaged omission of the words ― in the manner provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the recovery of fines imposed by a Court, as if such costs were a fine imposed by a Court ― from clause 29 of the Bill.
The Committee, however, decided that the entire clause 29 should be omitted from the Bill and Para 9 be reworded giving reasoning as shown below :- ―The Committee feel that a very stringent provision has been made in clause 29 of the Bill regarding recovery of expenses from the State Government.
The Committee are of the view that if the provision of recovery costs is kept in the legislation, the State Government(s) may not bring out the cases of any outbreak of pest(s)/diseases of plants and animals before the authority proactively and may also not take necessary quarantine measures.

The Committee, therefore, desire that clause 29 of the Bill be deleted.‖ 4.
The Committee also decided that the words ‗High Courts and‘ be added before the words ‗Supreme Court‘ in Para 10 of the Part II of the draft report.

5.

Subject to the above modifications, the Committee also authorized the Chairman to finalise the Draft Report on the basis of factual verification by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation and present the same to Hon‘ble Speaker and to Parliament.

*6. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx The Committee then adjourned.
*Matter not related to this Report.

126