People's Democracy

ARJUN SENGUPTA COMMISSION REPORT:

Towards A Universal Social Security System
Or A Mere Bunch Of Unrealistic Prescriptions?

W R Varada Rajan

THE National Commission for Enterprises in Unorganised sector, set up by the UPA government in September 2004, with Arjun Sengupta as chairman, has presented its report on Social Security for Unorganised Workers on May 16, 2006 to the prime minister. Ever since, there has been considerable hype built up over the prescriptions incorporated therein. The contents of the report, however, demand a careful and in depth scrutiny. 

Admittedly this exercise is a sequel to the commitment made in the NCMP of the UPA government, which reads as under: 

“The UPA government is firmly committed to ensuring the welfare and well-being of all workers, particularly those in the unorganised sector who constitute 93 per cent of our workforce. Social security, health insurance and other schemes for such workers like weavers, handloom workers, fishermen and fisherwomen, toddy tappers, leather workers, plantation labour, beedi workers, etc will be expanded”. 

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

There is yet another commitment in the NCMP specifically aimed at the huge workforce in the rural unorganised sector viz. agricultural workers, as follows: 

“The administration will ensure the fullest implementation of minimum wage laws for farm Labour. A comprehensive protective UPA legislation will be enacted for all agricultural workers”.

The latter has been hanging fire ever since the National Commission on Rural Labour, headed by C. H. Hanumanth Rao, submitted its report way back in 1991. A draft bill has been doing rounds in the government circles, which was virtually laid to rest during the NDA regime. One would have expected the UPA to revive that comprehensive bill for agricultural labourers keeping in line with its above noted NCMP commitment. Unfortunately, the UPA dispensation had maintained a studied silence on this, despite repeated reminders from the Left parties, trade unions and organisations of agricultural workers. 

The Arjun Sengupta Commission seeks to bring the agricultural workers also under the umbrella of its over arching scheme of social security for unorganised workers. This is not without a purpose. The Hanumanth Rao Commission had recommended a package of minimum social security benefits to be provided to the rural labourers by the state as a matter of high priority. These included old age pension, life insurance, maternity benefit, disability benefit (accident compensation) and minimum health care and sickness benefit. 

The NDA government replaced an earlier scheme of paying a lump sum exgratia amount to the family of the rural worker in the event of death due to accident with its Krishi Samajik Suraksha Yojana. This scheme, launched in July 2001 in 50 districts in the country, required a contribution of Re 1 per day by the agricultural workers matched by a contribution of Rs 2 by the government of India to a scheme implemented by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. It is pertinent to recollect here that the National Commission on Rural Labour had recommended life insurance benefits with a caveat that the premium be met by the state. As Arjun Sengupta report has noted, the Ministry of Finance took a decision to close this scheme, due to paucity of funds, retaining the same for the workers registered till February 24, 2004. 

In this backdrop, it makes little sense to propose a ‘contributory’ social security scheme for the unorganised workers including the agricultural workers. The Central Trade Union Organisations in their several representations to the successive governments had unanimously emphasised that there should be a separate bill for the large and distinct segment of agricultural workers, while insisting that the same should be moved simultaneously along with the one for unorganised workers. The UPA government must take a call on this in the context of its own NCMP commitment and must in any case not lump this vast segment of agricultural workers with an omnibus ‘informal sector’, which has come to be used interchangeably with the ‘unorganised sector’ in the present liberalisation paradigm.

COMPOSITION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

The present UPA exercise on unorganised sector is faulty both in terms of the composition and terms of reference of the Arjun Sengupta Commission. The terms of reference are very elaborate covering all aspects related to the unorganised sector enterprises. They also include, specifically, elements of employment strategy and ‘review of labour laws consistent with labour rights, and with the requirements of expanding growth of industry and services, particularly in the informal sector, and improving productivity and competitiveness’. The last item in the terms of reference relates to ‘review of social security system available for labour in the informal sector and make recommendations for expanding their coverage’. These are obviously matters of serious concern to trade unions. Yet, the government did not think it fit to give representation to trade unions in the composition of the commission.

The commission on its part appointed an advisory board as also a task force on social security. In these two bodies representation had been given to NGOs and academics but not to trade unions. The commission has presented its report only on the last item of its term of reference viz. social security. All other tasks assigned to the commission are yet to be completed. At least from this point of time, the defect in the composition of the commission should be corrected by including trade unions. The commission on its part should also associate trade unions in all its further activities and give representation to them in the bodies constituted by it. 

The terms of reference included ‘entrepreneurship development’ in small enterprises, which means giving a further thrust to proliferation of informal sector. This is in contrast with the Government of India commitment in successive international labour conferences to take measures to mainstream the units and the workers in the informal sector with the formal sector, in step with the ILO concept of addressing the decent work deficit.

NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY

The commission report laments: ‘India is yet to evolve a comprehensive national social security policy with regard to its entire population’. There has been a persistent demand from the trade unions for evolving such a comprehensive policy. The report of the Second National Commission on Labour has also emphasised this. Its suggestion in this regard was for the setting up of a National Social Security Authority, which will formulate such a comprehensive policy. The present commission report, however, limits itself to working out a skeleton scheme, which does not address all issues of insecurity faced by the unorganised sector workers. The report suggests that the government frame the scheme as recommended by it and set up a national social security board to guide and monitor its implementation through similar boards at state level. Even the draft of the National Advisory Council (NAC) contained a suggestion to constitute a National Social Security Authority. There is no perspective even outlined as to how and when a national policy on this vital aspect of workers’ welfare will be put in place. The government needs to address this core issue. 

CONCEPT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

The commission has opted for the concept of defined contributions in its architecture of social security scheme for unorganised sector workers. The scheme so formulated visualises provision of health and medical care benefits through social insurance. The commission has failed to take into account the prescriptions and experiences available at the international level. The report captures the proposed Indonesian model of social security in detail, which will be established in accordance with ‘the three pillar approach’ viz. “(1) Social assistance for citizens who lack the financial means or access to their basic needs … financed by state budget or by community funds; (2) a compulsory social insurance scheme financed by employers and employees and (3) A voluntary private insurance, in which a person may opt to take out additional insurance.” This Indonesian National Social Security System typically follows the model outlined by the World Bank in its report ‘Averting Old Age Crisis’, which flagged off the debate on pension reforms in India and outside. There is no need to point out that the unorganised workers in India fall entirely within the first of the three pillars noted above. The commission report correctly identified the problem of unorganised workers as that of deficiency or capability deprivation (inadequate employment, low earnings, low health and educational status and so on) and adversity (absence of fallback mechanism to meet contingencies). Ironically, the commission has proceeded to frontload the third pillar, with an amalgam of the first pillar, in the scheme proposed by it. This is bound to fail as the past experience of Krishi Samajik Suraksha Yojana (cited earlier) and the Unorganised Security Workers Social Security Scheme (2004), which is virtually closed, as recorded in the commission report itself. 

STATE MODELS IGNORED

The commission report has analysed in detail the different models, in vogue in several states, of providing social security to the unorganised workers and even noted the fairly beneficial aspects of a few of them. But, in working out its own scheme, the commission has virtually ignored these beneficial aspects of the state models. For instance, the state schemes have by and large adopted the social assistance concept – the lone exception being Gujarat – without incorporating any element of insurance. The commission report itself admits the validity of social assistance concept in the following words: ‘Given the low earnings of the workers in the informal economy, there is a strong case for providing social security to the informal workers without contributions from workers’. Ultimately, however, the commission has proposed a scheme incorporating only one solitary element of social assistance concept in the form of an extended National Old Age Pension Scheme, providing a monthly pension of Rs 200 for the BPL workers in the age group above 60 years. For the rest, the scheme heavily relies on social insurance concept only, requiring contributions from unorganised sector workers. The commission report justifies this approach in the name of giving a sense of ownership to these workers. Even if it were to be so, the quantum of ‘some contribution’ insisted by the commission could have been patterned on several of the state models, where the contributions from workers range from 50 paise or one rupee per month to Rs 60 per annum or a token registration fee. In fact the trade unions had unanimously suggested levying of a small registration fee coupled with a token renewal fee. This failure to factor in the beneficial aspects of state models tends to make the proposed scheme a non-starter. 

UNREALISTIC PRESCRIPTIONS

The contribution rate prescribed by the commission for the worker is Re 1 per day totaling to Rs 365 per annum, irrespective of the actual number of days worked. This is to be supplemented by contributions from employers/government to take the total amount to Rs 1095 per annum. The commission proceeds to distribute this Rs 1095 into three segments of national minimum social security - Rs 380 for health benefits and maternity cover; Rs 150 for life insurance, and Rs 565 for old age security, through which the benefits would be provided. Further, the commission has clarified, ‘Rs 1095 has to be suitably indexed to take care of inflation.’ However, when it comes to the benefits under the social insurance schemes suggested as above, there is no word of they being indexed to inflation. 

As per data made available by the National Sample Survey Organisation, the number of days worked for agricultural workers in rural areas has come down to 71 days in a year. How does one expect such workers to contribute Rs 365 for buying the social security, when even their subsistence is a question mark? Similar is the case of unorganised sector workers, who do not get employment on a regular basis and in most cases are denied even the notified minimum wages. 

Even assuming that the unorganised sector workers pay up this Rs 365 per annum, the benefits proposed under the scheme are meagre and delivery thereof is doubtful. For instance the health insurance policy will fetch only reimbursement of Rs 15000 for a family of five, maternity benefit up to a maximum of Rs 1000, death (by accident) benefit of Rs 25000 and sickness cover during hospitalisation for 15 days (excess of 3 days) at Rs 50 per day. (The death and sickness benefits will be available only for the earning head of family.) There will be no provision for reimbursement of cost of medicines during domiciliary treatment. The life insurance cover will fetch a benefit of Rs 15000. All these are limited to the policy period and will cease on its expiry. There is no provision in the scheme for any pension for the worker on completing 60 years, except for those under the BPL category. They are ‘free’ to buy an annuity from any insurance company from out of the PF accumulations they are supposed to get under old age security! Even in respect of this PF amount there will be a lock-in period of ten years, during which the worker will not be allowed to get refund of his money even if he were to lose the job and be permanently disabled. There is no provision anywhere in the scheme to cover contingencies like disability, unemployment etc. 

With such a shallow benefit package, the commission has incorporated very stringent conditions in the draft bill annexed to the report to the effect that ‘every registered worker shall be eligible for the national minimum social security benefits only if payments of regular contributions have been made’ and that renewals (of the identity cards for being eligible for the benefits of the scheme) ‘would be allowed on payment of arrears of contribution, if any.’ In sum, these render the prescriptions of the commission unrealistic and un-implementable, given the ground realities of employment and earning conditions of the unorganised workers. 

RETROGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS

The commission report has recommended that the contribution of Rs 1095 (distributed into three segments) be handed to the insurance companies (Rs 380 for health benefits and maternity cover; Rs 150 for life insurance) and Mutual Funds (Rs 565 for old age security), which is earmarked as provident fund with an assured interest of 10 per cent. Why mutual funds? ‘The experience of the last several years suggests that the annual return has been well above ten per cent.’ At the same time, the commission records that mutual fund organisations will not be in a position to guarantee a minimum return. There are even recommendations that the shortfall in this interest rate of 10 per cent will be topped up by the National Social Security Fund and that State Boards may declare (illusory?) bonus also in case there is excess realisation! This again is a cleverly designed variant of the New Pension System, which is meant to privatise the social security and divert the contribution of the workforce to the speculative share market. As regards the benefits under the twin insurance schemes, they will depend on the health infrastructure that may or may not be available in the vicinity of where the unorganised workers live and there are underlying conditions that the claim to premium ratio should be within 70 per cent. The commission report also notes, ‘the experience of the general insurance companies with regard to health insurance services is rather limited’. Yet. It exudes optimism that over long periods this may work! The retrograde nature of these recommendations is self-revealing. 

FINANCES NOT TIED UP

The commission report fails to suggest measures to raise financial resources for implementing even the very limited scheme proposed by it. It leaves it to the government to decide on how to mobilise resources – either through a cess or a tax.

The trade unions had unanimously suggested that the central government should allocate at least 3 per cent of the GDP annually for social security, which should be progressively increased. The unanimous conclusions of the Indian Labour Conference held in December 2005 had recommended: 

· The floor level social security schemes like life and accident cover, health insurance and maternity benefit should be funded by the central government.
· The administrative and infrastructure expenditure under the proposed legislation should be borne by the central government for the initial period of five years.

As against this, the commission had calculated that the contribution of the central government will be 0.17 per cent in the first year and go up to 0.39 per cent in the fifth year, as the commission proposes to spread the coverage of the unorganised sector workers under its scheme over a period of five years. 

The commission report has noted that the public social security expenditure as a percentage of GDP is around 25 per cent for E U member countries and around 18 per cent for OECD member countries. It is 3.6 for China and 4.7 for Sri Lanka, while in India it is only 2.6, that too after including 0.9 per cent expenditure for health (for the year 1996). The Second National Commission on Labour, however, noted, “the developed countries are spending up to 40 per cent of their GDP on safety nets. But, in India, the public expenditure on social security is a mere 1.8 per cent while even in Sri Lanka it is 4.7 per cent”. The divergence in these estimates notwithstanding, the glaring fact is the stubborn refusal to take into reckoning the global practices, when globalisation is the ‘mantra’ of the day.

Central and state governments are required to share the contribution to the scheme proposed by it in the ratio of 3:1. Given the resource crunch faced by the governments in all the states and the fact that several of them are already implementing some kind of welfare measures for the unorganised sector workers, it is doubtful if the states would be willing to shoulder this additional burden. 

More interestingly, the commission report records the response of the Ministry of Finance (at the centre) as just ‘the matter is being processed’. Hence, we are unsure whether the government of India also is willing to undertake even the very nominal contribution proposed by the commission!

Hence, in our view, the scheme proposed by the commission needs a thorough overhaul and should be restructured taking into account the unanimous inputs provided by the trade unions. The service conditions, minimum wages and employment regulation relating to unorganised sector workers should also be part of a composite bill. Trade unions should make concerted efforts to bring pressure on the UPA government to bring about meaningful and practical legislations for the benefit of the agricultural and unorganised workers, a task which brooks no further delay.