‘Confident of completing housing for all in time’
NEW DELHI : The performance of the central government in providing housing has stood the test of the Covid-19 pandemic, rural development ministry secretary Nagendra Nath Sinha tells Saubhadra Chatterji. Edited excerpts:
The ministry data said that in FY19-20, 56.6% houses of the annual target were completed whereas in FY20-21, so far only 4.16% of the annual target has been completed.
We have to look at this data with the totality of the situation. The houses that are sanctioned in a financial year, their completion rate should be looked at only in the next financial year even as the ministry is encouraging the states and the beneficiaries to build houses as early as possible. Normally, we allow a year for completion of the houses, and treat a house as delayed only when the construction does not get completed in that period. We have cases where houses have been completed in just three months. We are happy that about 26 lakh houses have been completed so far in this financial year. This including those sanctioned last year and 2.65 lakh houses from this year’s targets.
For almost six months, the state governments have had their operations paralysed due to Covid-19 pandemic. So, most of the new PMAYG houses were sanctioned only after August and beneficiaries got only 5-6 months to build their houses in this financial year. In fact, we should celebrate that despite difficulties presented by Covid-19 and attendant circumstances, beneficiaries were able to complete 2.65 lakh houses in a period of less than six months.
We started this year with 1.42 crore sanctions and now we are at 1.91 crore of sanctions. Thus almost 49 lakh units have been sanctioned in this year. We are in the process of sanctioning more for which the states are being vigorously pursued.
A performance audit paper says pace of sanction has slowed down drastically due to as Covid-19, elections and saturation of SC/ST beneficiaries.
The availability of manpower in government offices had also been an issue. The other factor is that in some states, the Covid-19 situation seems to again look serious. So, the panic is still there. Another big problem is availability of land. The Centre is working with the states on this but after a series of land distribution programmes, there is very little land available near habitable areas. Some states have relaxed land norms, while some have allowed multistoried houses for the scheme.
Some states have also indicated financial constraints and have been very slow in sanctioning PMAYG houses. Some states have returned targets allocated to them. But even despite Covid-19, sanction of about 49 lakh houses is not a mean achievement. There are still 40 days left in this financial year and more houses will get completed.
Are you confident to achieve Housing for All by August 2022?
We have cases where houses have been completed in just three months. We are happy that about 26 lakh houses have been completed so far in this financial year
First of all, I dispute the way completion rate is measured. It should be measured against the sanctions of a year ago, while 4.16% achievement is against the current years’ sanction. In fact, we should see this achievement vis-a-vis the last year’s sanction. What you are mentioning as low performance, in fact should be counted as a superior performance in the exceptional circumstances of Covid-19, as these houses have been completed in less than 6 months’ time.
We started out with the permanent waiting list based on the SECC. We are confident of providing houses for all PW by the said period. Those who have come late through Awaas +, their houses will require some more time... Also, the states have been massively affected by Covid-19.
The PMAYG started with a target to build 2.95 crore houses. What is the progress on that target?
The SECC found 4.04 crore people didn’t have houses or had kaccha houses with not more than two rooms. The figures were verified by Gram Sabhas and the number came down to 2.95 crore. This was the target for PMAYG. Sanction of the houses is subject to verification as someone who didn’t have a house in 2011 SECC survey might have built a house in the intervening period, some people might have migrated permanently or died. Meanwhile, as Awaas+ survey has been undertaken where 3.57 lakh people claimed to be left out of SECC, 2011. We have asked states to conduct physical verification. Once completed, genuine claimants can be determined.
The past three weeks saw three key events in India’s economic and fiscal policy calendar. The Economic Survey of India was tabled in the Parliament on the first day of the Budget Session. Budget 2021-22 was presented on February 1; and the Fifteenth Finance Commission (FFC)’s final report was then tabled in Parliament.
While these may be seen as routine events, there was something unprecedented in their content — the focus on health. Health and wellbeing were the first of the six pillars in the finance minister’s budget speech. The Economic Survey has two chapters on health — a first. And then FFC report dedicates a chapter to health, and a sub-chapter to local body grants for health. Never has health been a centrepiece of India’s economic policy establishment. In fact, it has been conspicuous in its absence. These events mark health’s entry into the mainstream of economic policy.
The shift is undoubtedly shaped by the Covid-19 pandemic, which demonstrated that a health shock can wreck the economy. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to contract by 7.5% in 2020-21 due to the impact of the lockdown on jobs and businesses. Covid-19 unearthed the deep, but often invisible and unacknowledged, link between health and the economy. Though Covid-19 hastened the realisation, there was growing acknowledgement of health’s importance for the economy prior to it. FFC’s interim report highlighted the centrality of health for productivity and growth-enhancing human capital.
There are two key implications of this shift. First, increasing, policy importance will be accorded to health as it starts getting viewed as “human capital investment”, not merely social sector expenditure. The Economic Survey and FFC both highlight this point, and outline the multiplier effect of government health spending on growth. Greater resource allocation for health will follow the shift in thinking. The 2021-22 Budget underscores the point. Budgeted expenditure on health increased by 75% to over ₹1.2 lakh crore, even after excluding allocations for drinking water and sanitation.
Second, there will be greater scrutiny and thinking around how and where funds are spent, with the ministry of finance pushing for efficiency and increasing utilisation of allocated funds. Health policy and government spending have often prioritised cure, and had a disproportionate focus on secondary and tertiary care. Though the National Health Mission (NHM) is correcting the balance, an economic lens of efficiency can further push the preventive, promotive, and primary care components.
Two examples highlight the shift. One, there is a broader conception of health and well-being in Budget 2021-22 and this
includes drinking water and sanitation, both key for preventive health, with farreaching impact. Contaminated water and poor sanitation are linked to the transmission of diseases such as diarrhoea, cholera, and dysentery. They also contribute to malnutrition. The allocation for drinking water and sanitation has increased over four-and-a-half times from ₹21,000 crore in 2020-21(BE) to ₹96,000 crore in 2021-22(BE), including FFC grants. Further increases in government health spending will still be required, but with a concurrent focus on systemic efficiency.
Similarly, both FFC and the Economic Survey highlight the need to further strengthen the focus on primary care, typically under-consumed and under-provided. The former recommends primary health expenditure be two-thirds of total health expenditure by 2022. The finance ministry has accepted FFC’s recommendation
for local government grants to improve primary health service provision. Prioritising efficiency and systemic focus on determinants of health will be as important as an increase in resources allocated for health.
There is a long road ahead to building a robust health system. Recognition of health in the economic mainstream is not the same as sustained policy focus and resource allocation. It is certainly no guarantee of implementation of lofty goals, which require solving tricky governance and administration challenges. However, recognising and prioritising health is an important gesture by the economic and fiscal policy community. It would serve it well to internalise this lesson.