If MPs on a Lok Sabha panel get their way,they could soon give themselves and their colleagues a five-fold increase in the monies they can disperse on capital works in their constituencies. At a meeting of the Lok Sabha Standing Committee on MP Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) on Wednesday,unanimity was had on moving a proposal to increase the annual allocation per MP from Rs 2 crore to Rs 10 crore. The initiative is in its early stages,and therefore its passage far from guaranteed but given the gusto with which MPs have sought such a hike,Parliament and the government should take this as a nudge to consider whether the MPLAD scheme should be even continued with,let alone enhanced with greater funds. Under the scheme,MPs are allowed to recommend capital works in their constituencies in their states,if they happen to be in Rajya Sabha for a total of Rs 2 crore per year. Guidelines and checks are in place on how the money is sanctioned and on what works it may be spent. The scheme is administered at the Centre by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation and projects must be sanctioned and coordinated by the district collector. Nevertheless,there have been incidents of irregularities. But these irregularities and remember some MPs lost their membership of the last Lok Sabha on this count by themselves could be a simple case for better oversight and procedures. As would the criticism that sanction for projects does not adequately factor in maintenance and upgrade. The fact is that the MPLAD scheme and it finds replication at the state assembly and even municipal level is flawed not just in its execution but also in its very conception. By giving legislators a direct role in disbursing funds for capital projects,the scheme erodes the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. In fact,it is precisely on this count that the Administrative Reforms Council headed by Veerappa Moily,now Union law minister,recommended that the MPLAD scheme be scrapped. The National Advisory Council,now defunct but seen to be a guiding influence in the UPA-I heady period of social spending,too was critical. It was felt that such capital expenditure was more gainfully undertaken by local bodies. These arguments are sound and substantive. Yet,this scheme,begun in 1993 by P.V. Narasimha Rao as a legitimate way to give MPs a stake in seeing out their Lok Sabhas full term,is routinely sought to be deepened and enhanced. That is regrettable.
