Full MPLADS funds spent in only 35 of 543 constituencies

Full MPLADS funds spent in only 35 of 543 constituencies

News:

Centre to change the pattern of MPLADS funding, from two instalments to one every year.

Important Facts:

• Delay in completion of projects and release of MPLADS funds by the respective district administrations, Centre is planning to change the pattern of MPLADS funding, from two instalments to one every year.

Report Outcome

• Data released by the Union ministry of statistics and programme implementation shows that out of the 543 elected Lok Sabha constituencies, only 35 constituencies utilized the entire MPLADS fund amount of Rs 25 crore with projects completed, since 2014, when the 16th Lok Sabha was constituted.
• None of the Lok Sabha constituencies in the southern states has utilized the entire allocation
• West Bengal, UP, Gujarat, and Haryana are the only states where one or more constituencies utilized the entire allocation

About MPLADS Scheme:

• MPLADS is a centrally sponsored scheme fully funded by the government.
• The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation formulates the guidelines, releases funds, and monitors implementation. Earlier, the scheme was administered by the ministry of rural development
• MPLADS provides MPs five crore rupees per annum to identify and fund development projects in their constituencies, as per the guidelines drawn up by Parliament.
• The role of MPs is limited to ‘recommending’ works as the actual implementation is done by local authorities. Therefore, the scheme does not violate separation of powers.
• The MPs may recommend projects in sectors such as infrastructure development, public health, sanitation, water, etc.
• Elected members of Lok Sabha can suggest developmental works in their constituency, while elected members of Rajya Sabha can recommend works in one or more districts of their State.
• Nominated members of Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha can recommend works in one or more districts anywhere in the country.

Major Issues with the scheme:

• Corruption – there have been cases of widespread corruption and mis-appropriation of funds. In a lot of cases, private contractors (which are not permitted) are engaged to implement the works
• Funding – there are large amounts of unspent balances rising over the years, low utilization of funds and an expenditure bias towards a particular sector. A significant number of MPs are yet to open a bank account
• Delivery – there are weaknesses in the process of sanction. The District Authorities tend to execute works without receiving any recommendations from MPs concerned.
• Sustainability of the scheme – there have been charges that the scheme goes against the spirit of the 73rd and the 74th Amendment, with MPs enjoying the privilege of an uninterrupted yearly flow of funds to do the work which local bodies are better placed to deliver.
• Unconstitutional – The constitutionality of the scheme has also been questioned, with the argument that the scheme erodes the notion of separation of powers, as the legislator directly becomes the executive
• Lack of adequate information – available to MPs, which sometimes leads to a disproportionately large amount of money flowing into one district