Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

                                                                                                   
SHRI ANTO ANTONY (PATHANAMATHITTA): Mr. Chairman, Sir, I strongly welcome the Government’s noble initiative to amend the Rubber Act, 1947.  It shows the commitment of the Government to a sector that has shown a productivity increase of 465 per cent in the last 50 years.
          Sir, I represent a State where 90 per cent of rubber in India is produced.  Ninety per cent of the rubber growers belong to the category of small farmers. According to the Rubber Board statistics, there are only 283 large scale farmers but there exists more than 10 lakh small scale farmers.  But the large scale farmers, whose number is mere 283, get three representatives in the Board of Directors whereas more than 10 lakh small scale farmers get a meagre three representatives.  This makes decisions of the Rubber Board getting greatly influenced by the tycoons in the sector.
SHRI P.T. THOMAS (IDUKKI): Will the Government consider, as a policy matter, to introduce rubberised roads all over India?
SHRI ANTO ANTONY (PATHANAMATHITTA):  Now, the Rubber Board restricts all benefits for farmers below five hectares.  Will you define a “small farmer” as a farmer growing below ten hectares?  Why should we restrict the benefits to these farmers?
SHRI PRABODH PANDA (MIDNAPORE): The term “Minimum” in “Minimum Support Price” is understandable. But, why is the term “Maximum” being used? What prompts the Minister to use this term “Maximum”? Why is he using that term? I think this term should be deleted.