Most legislative assemblies make Parliament look like a paragon of virtue A COUPLE of days ago, an MLA from Orissa made news for climbing on to the speaker's table in the assembly. Not so long ago, television screens beamed images of Karnataka MLAs snacking and sleeping all night in the assembly. But these are only indicative of the incidents of the raucous behaviour of several MLAs in the recent past across the country. And the poor behaviour of some MLAs is only one aspect of the pitiable state of several of our state legislatures. The other aspect of our state legislatures that goes largely unnoticed is how poorly the secretariats of legislatures are equipped and how several systems that are seen as essential in Parliament are nonexistent in states. Even to know the complete picture of how our legislatures function, you need data. And several state assemblies are notoriously poor at putting out data on the functioning of the institution or the MLAs. After one gets used to the quality of Parliament websites and the regularity of their updates, it would be shocking to see that there are some state legislatures that do not even have functional websites. It has been observed that some state legislatures are lagging behind by a couple of years in compiling the "resume of work" which summarises the work done in a session of the legislature. So the first bottleneck in several instances is the inability to access data of the assembly. From the data we have managed to access, it is obvious that state assemblies meet for very few days a year. A case in point is the Punjab assembly which has met for an average of 19 days per year for a 10-year period between 1997 and 2007. Delhi was only marginally better averaging 21 days per year during the same period. Kerala has averaged some 50 days a year for several years now. Some states like Karnataka have legislated that they should meet for at least 60 days a year, but since passing that legislation in 2005, they have not managed to do so for even one year. I am not even accounting for the time lost due to disruptions. Bills are passed with little or no discussion in many state legislatures. While in Parliament, referring bills to the standing committees is the norm, most state legislatures do not have standing committees. The only examination of a bill, if any, happens on the floor of the House. And if data from the Delhi assembly is anything to go by, the average debate on a bill before is passed is a little over half hour. There are any number of instances where bills are introduced and passed in state assemblies on the same day -so there is not even a pretence of the need for MLAs to read, understand and deliberate on the provisions of legislation they are supposedly passing. MLAs are often far more narrowly constituency-focused than MPs are. On average, MLAs have lower education levels than members of Parliament. There is no formal definition of a role of an MLA, and they mostly have no exposure to ideas such as the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. In one particularly revealing conversation with an MLA, he said, "At the time of elections, each of the contestants represents his party. But after the elections, the chiefministerbecomestheleader of all MLAs in the House. If an MLAneedssomeadditionalprojects/ favours for his constituency he needs to be in the good books of the chief minister and his cabinet ministers. So where is the question of taking on the chief minister on the floor of the House on any issue?" There are many aspects of state legislatures that point to a steady and visible decline of these important institutions. But beyond the frequent highlighting of theatrics by some MLAs, there is almost no public discourse on this issue. It is necessary to ensure that the legislatures run smoothly, and the speaker, as first among equals, has the biggest responsibility to ensure this. If there are rules and everyone knows that those rules will never be used to enforce discipline, then the rules will be broken, and repeatedly so. This practice needs to be urgently reviewed. The larger question is whether our legislatures are the highest deliberating and policymaking bodies or whether they are being reduced to platforms for political theatrics. Policy can almost never be devoid of politics and public posturing. But if this means poor deliberation of critical policy issues and the woefully inadequate functioning of our legislatures, then we may need to come up with creative ways in which this problem can be addressed. This article appeared in the Indian Express on December 20, 2010.
In Budget Session 2018, Rajya Sabha has planned to examine the working of four ministries. The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation is one of the ministries listed for discussion. In this post, we look at the key schemes being implemented by the Ministry and their status.
What are the key functions of the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation?
As per the Constitution, supply of water and sanitation are state subjects which means that states regulate and provide these services. The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation is primarily responsible for policy planning, funding, and coordination of programs for: (i) safe drinking water; and (ii) sanitation, in rural areas. From 1999 till 2011, the Ministry operated as a Department under the Ministry of Rural Development. In 2011, the Department was made an independent Ministry. Presently, the Ministry oversees the implementation of two key schemes of the government: (i) Swachh Bharat Mission-Gramin (SBM-G), and (ii) National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP).
How have the finances and spending priorities of the Ministry changed over time?
In the Union Budget 2018-19, the Ministry has been allocated Rs 22,357 crore. This is a decrease of Rs 1,654 crore (7%) over the revised expenditure of 2017-18. In 2015-16, the Ministry over-shot its budget by 178%. Consequently, the allocation in 2016-17 was more than doubled (124%) to Rs 14,009 crore.
In recent years, the priorities of the Ministry have seen a shift (see Figure 1). The focus has been on providing sanitation facilities in rural areas, mobilising behavioural change to increase usage of toilets, and consequently eliminating open defecation. However, this has translated into a decrease in the share of allocation towards drinking water (from 87% in 2009-10 to 31% in 2018-19). In the same period, the share of allocation to rural sanitation has increased from 13% to 69%.
What has been the progress under Swacch Bharat Mission- Gramin?
The Swachh Bharat Mission was launched on October 2, 2014 with an aim to achieve universal sanitation coverage, improve cleanliness, and eliminate open defecation in the country by October 2, 2019.
Expenditure on SBM-G: In 2018-19, Rs 15,343 crore has been allocated towards SBM-G. The central government allocation to SBM-G for the five year period from 2014-15 to 2018-19 has been estimated to be Rs 1,00,447 crore. Of this, up to 2018-19, Rs 52,166 crore (52%) has been allocated to the scheme. This implies that 48% of the funds are still left to be released before October 2019. 
Construction of Individual Household Latrines (IHHLs): For construction of IHHLs, funds are shared between the centre and states in the 60:40 ratio. Construction of IHHLs account for the largest share of total expenditure under the scheme (97%-98%). Although the number of toilets constructed each year has increased, the pace of annual growth of constructing these toilets has come down. In 2015-16, the number of toilets constructed was 156% higher than the previous year. This could be due to the fact that 2015-16 was the first full year of implementation of the scheme. The growth in construction of new toilets reduced to 74% in 2016-17, and further to 4% in 2017-18.
As of February 2018, 78.8% of households in India had a toilet. This implies that 15 crore toilets have been constructed so far. However, four crore more toilets need to be construced in the next 20 months for the scheme to achieve its target by 2019.
Open Defecation Free (ODF) villages: Under SBM-G, a village is ODF when: (i) there are no visible faeces in the village, and (ii) every household as well as public/community institution uses safe technology options for faecal disposal. After a village declares itself ODF, states are required to carry out verification of the ODF status of such a village. This includes access to a toilet facility and its usage, and safe disposal of faecal matter through septic tanks. So far, out of all villages in the country, 72% have been verified as ODF. This implies that 28% villages are left to be verified as ODF for the scheme to achieve its target by 2019.
Information, Education and Communication (IEC) activities: As per the SBM-G guidelines, 8% of funds earmarked for SBM-G in a year should be utilised for IEC activities. These activities primarily aim to mobilise behavioural change towards the use of toilets among people. However, allocation towards this component has remained in the 1%-4% range. In 2017-18, Rs 229 crore is expected to be spent, amounting to 2% of total expenditure.
What is the implementation status of the National Rural Drinking Water Programme?
The National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP) aims at assisting states in providing adequate and safe drinking water to the rural population in the country. In 2018-19, the scheme has been allocated Rs 7,000 crore, accounting for 31% of the Ministry’s finances.
Coverage under the scheme: As of August 2017, 96% of rural habitations have access to safe drinking water. In 2011, the Ministry came out with a strategic plan for the period 2011-22. The plan identified certain standards for coverage of habitations with water supply, including targets for per day supply of drinking water. As of February 2018, 74% habitations are fully covered (receiving 55 litres per capita per day), and 22% habitations are partially covered (receiving less than 55 litres per capita per day). The Ministry aims to cover 90% rural households with piped water supply and 80% rural households with tap connections by 2022. The Estimates Committee of Parliament (2015) observed that piped water supply was available to only 47% of rural habitations, out of which only 15% had household tap connections.
Contamination of drinking water: It has been noted that NRDWP is over-dependant on ground water. However, ground water is contaminated in over 20 states. For instance, high arsenic contamination has been found in 68 districts of 10 states. These states are Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Assam, Manipur, and Karnataka.
Chemical contamination of ground water has also been reported due to deeper drilling for drinking water sources. It has been recommended that out of the total funds for NRDWP, allocation for water quality monitoring and surveillance should not be less than 5%. Presently, it is 3% of the total funds. It has also been suggested that water quality laboratories for water testing should be set up throughout the country.
