Shourie finds support on HPCL, BPCL disinvestment

In the midst of the debate, Shourie got into a spat with AIADMK member P.H. Pandian, was in the Speaker’s chair. Pandian asked him whether Parliament’s authority could be ruled out in matters like disinvestment in HPCL and BPCL. ‘‘Is Parliament’s sanction not necessary for selling of PSUs?’’ asked Pandian. While his query found favour with the Opposition members, Shourie retorted, saying that if Pandian wanted to debate he should be sitting on the benches and not in the Speaker’s chair. Shourie also asked that if Parliament’s approval was mandatory, was the selling of equity in HPCL and BPCL in 1991 also illegal. CPI (M) leader Somnath Chatterjee shot back at the Minister, saying ‘‘Are you encouraged by what was done then?’’

Intervening in the debate, Kirit Somaiya (BJP) said since the debate was on, the Minister would reply to the concerns later. The first speaker on oil sector privatisation was Somnath Chaterjee of Communist Part of India (Marxist), who offered the usual arguments against the sale of HPCL and BPCL. The two companies were nationalised by an Act of Parliament, so Parliamentary approval is mandatory before any such decision on the two companies, he said. ‘‘If the government is so sure about its position on the issue, why doesn’t it come to Parliament for its sanction?’’

He urged fellow Parliamentarians to ‘‘rise above the party line’’ and oppose the privatisation of HPCL and BPCL. He charged the government for selling profit-making public sector undertakings (PSUs), calling them ‘‘jewels’’.

MAK Swain of the BJP ridiculed Chaterjee’s concern about national security, arguing that a party — that is, CPI(M) — which came into being in order to support the Chinese aggression against India, has no right talk about patriotism. As for the nationalisation of the two oil PSUs, he said this was because at that time there was no private company to invest in the sector.

Now, the situation is different and private parties want to enter the oil sector. In any case, the record of PSUs is not very good, the rate of return being just 3.5 per cent on the money on which the government is paying 8.5 per cent inerest. ‘‘This is no way to give 19 lakh jobs,’’ Swain said. He also asked Chaterjee to see what China, ‘‘your guru’’, is doing. China has privatised a number PSUs, he said.

On the charge that the government is selling profit-making PSUs, Swain said all these profits are made when PSUs enjoy monopoly. Citing the example of Steel Authority of India Ltd, he said PSUs cannot face stiff competition. They should be privatised so that they could face competition.

Ramji Lal Suman of the Samajwadi Party opposed the privatisation of HPCL and BPCL on the grounds of security concerns. He also questioned the rationale behind selling profit-making PSUs. Prakash Paranjpe of Shiv Sena also opposed oil sector privatisation at the behest of, as he said, their ‘‘supremo Balasaheb Thakare’’.

However, the parliamentary committee did not show much friendliness to Shourie. The committee, whose report was tabled on Thursday, asked the government to seek approval of Parliament before HPCL and BPCL sale. ‘‘This (disinvestment) signals a departure from the declared policy (of keeping the strategically important oil sector under state control). A departure from the declared policy cannot be made through the government’s executive decision and it is required to be endorsed by Parliament,’’ the Parliamentary Standing Committee on petroleum said.

The Committee, in its report tabled in Parliament on Thursday, said BPCL and HPCL were nationalised in 1970s through an Act of Parliament in view of their strategic importance and a reversal of the decision should be approved by the same body.