RAJYA SABHA - PRS

53. The Committee regret to note that no representation has been made for the jute farmersand the jute workers in the National Jute Board Bill particularly when provision of threemembers to represent jute farmers and three members to represent jute workers exists in theJute Manufactures Development Council Act, 1983. In this regard, the Committee also note thatoverwhelming majority of stakeholders have suggested to make a suitable provision to includerepresentatives of farmers and workers in the Board. In the Bill, provisions have been made toinclude representatives of manufacturers of both the organized and the decentralized sectorsand exporters, but the interests of jute farmers and jute workers have been ignored. TheCommittee take a serious view of this lapse and feel that the aim of integrated development ofthe jute sector may prove futile due to non-participation of jute farmers and jute workers in theBoard. The Committee, therefore, recommend that three of representatives of farmers, onefrom the State of West Bengal and two from other States on rotational basis and threerepresentatives of workers, one from the State of West Bengal and two from other States onrotational basis, should be included in the National Jute Board.54. The Committee have also noted that no provision has been made for the inclusion ofexperts from jute technology and the related fields in the Board, while the Jute ManufacturesDevelopment Council Act, 1983, provides for appointment of five such members in the JuteManufactures Development Council. The Committee fail to understand the logic behind thisnon-inclusion of experts in the Board. In this regard, the Committee are of the view that thesuggestions of the experts in the jute field will be of immense value to the Board in its initiativesfor the development of jute sector. The Committee, therefore, recommend that at least twoexperts from the field of jute technology and related fields should included in the Board.21