As per the provisions of the Bill, coal mining companies will have to share 26% of the profits from their mines with people impacted by projects. In the case of non-coal miners, the new law will provide for payment of an amount equivalent to royalty paid to the state government to project-affected persons
New Delhi: A new Mines Bill that provides for sharing of profits and royalty with project-affected people has been cleared by the Cabinet, mines minister Dinsha Patel said Friday. The Bill is likely to be tabled in the Parliament in the Winter session, reports PTI.
"The Union Cabinet today approved the Mines and Mineral Development and Regulation (MMDR) Bill, 2011, which has provisions for 26% profit-sharing by coal miners and an amount equivalent to royalty by others with project- affected people," Mr Patel said.
The Bill was earlier supposed to be tabled during the Monsoon session, as a ministerial panel headed by finance minister Pranab Mukherjee had approved it in July.
As per the provisions of the Bill, coal mining companies will have to share 26% of the profits from their mines with people impacted by projects.
In the case of non-coal miners, the new law will provide for payment of an amount equivalent to royalty paid to the state government to project-affected persons.
The new MMDR Bill, 2011 seeks to replace a more than half-a-century-old law under the same name.
As per the Bill, a Mineral Development Fund will be created in every district, in which profit and royalty shared by miners will be deposited and spent on the local population and area development, mines secretary S Vijay Kumar said.
Apart from compensating project-affected people through profit-sharing and royalty, the new Bill also obligates mining firms to pay a 10% cess to state governments and 2.5% to the Centre on the total royalty paid.
The mines secretary added that the Bill also has punitive provisions to prevent illegal mining.
Our discussions of SEBI’s paper on investment advisors have drawn a tremendous response. Here is the summary of the distributors’ perspective
Comments have been pouring in from distributors of financial products- apart from the ones that are already there in our website (Please scroll below for the earlier articles). We have decided to summarise some of them around a few critical areas.
Trail commission: What happens to trail commission which a distributor may have painstakingly built up over so many years, and also whatever upfront commissions he currently gets, if he wants to become an advisor? Indeed, if this sum is large, all advisors would not become agents and there would be no new advisors.
Qualifications: As per SEBI's proposal, a CA or an MBA or those having at least 10 years' experience can become advisors. Stockbrokers and sub-brokers are exempt. Does this mean that they are allowed to offer investment advice, especially since SEBI has allowed them to offer mutual funds as a traded product? Also, large distributors are mandated to have just two employees with relevant experience exclusively for this activity. Does this mean that their army of "relationship managers" is free to continue in its ways?
Freedom: Insurance regulation today does not allow agents to sell any product they like. They are tied to a manufacturer. Does it make them independent? To offer the best product to the customer, shouldn't an agent be allowed to sell any product across any mutual funds, insurance products, post-office offerings or bank deposits? If SEBI is so keen on customer interest, why hasn't it taken a lead in this regard in the High Level Coordination Committee (HLCC)? The fact is, if a fundamental customer issue like mis-selling will have to be addressed, all regulators have to come together or else it would create distortions.
Execution: The concept paper also says that an advisor cannot help in execution. Is this realistic, given the current state of products, lack of technology, multiple levels of KYC (Know Your Customer) norms? And does SEBI even know what customers prefer? Would they prefer to move from a mutual fund advisor to a mutual fund agent to an insurance agent to a banker for a fixed deposit?
Paperwork: The SEBI paper also talks about the documentation of all advice, suitability of products and storing of that information for five years. This only creates enormous paperwork without any purpose. One financial planner writes: "Maintaining records of all advice given to a client is bad enough... maintaining a record for five years of all conversations pertaining to advice is virtually impossible for everyone, but the biggest organisations."
Advisory scope: No investment advisor can deal independently across all financial products. One would need extensive and continuing research and also a compensation level from customers, which keeps advisors independent. In any case, it is not just about expertise and money. It is also about attitude. SEBI should find out whether it is even theoretically possible for a large bank to be independent in their approach.
These are just some of the issues that distributors have highlighted. If you have more points to share, please write to us at [email protected]
You may also want to read:
Investment Advisor Regulation III: SROs have never worked in the past; will it work now?
Investment Advisor Regulation - II: How SEBI's do-gooding can be easily undermined
Investment Advisor Regulation I: SEBI's ideas are, as usual, far from reality; may increase mis-selling!
The Enforcement Directorate had also submitted that the government had sufficient evidence to prove that Pune-based stud farm owner Hassan Ali Khan had several foreign accounts and illegal money to the tune of over $93 million had been stashed away abroad
New Delhi: In a setback to Pune-based stud farm owner Hassan Ali Khan, the Supreme Court today quashed the bail granted to him by the Bombay High Court in a money laundering case, reports PTI.
A bench headed by justice Altamas Kabir allowed the plea of Enforcement Directorate (ED) which had approached the apex court challenging the 12th August high court order granting bail to 58-year-old Mr Khan.
After hearing the submissions of the ED and Mr Khan, the bench said the "order of the high court needs to be interfered with."
The apex court had on 16th August stayed the bail granted to Mr Khan after the ED moved a petition challenging the high court order.
Mr Khan has been accused of holding two forged passports and granting bail would help him flee from the country, the agency had contended.
The ED had also submitted that the government had sufficient evidence to prove that Mr Khan had several foreign accounts and illegal money to the tune of over $93 million had been stashed away abroad.
It had said a Letters Rogatory had been sent to several countries for obtaining more information on his bank accounts having illegal money. The various transactions led by Mr Khan through his foreign bank accounts reveal his association with international arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, according to it.
It had alleged that in 2003, $300 million was apparently received by Mr Khan from Mr Khashoggi from weapon sales.
Mr Khan, however, has refuted the allegations, saying the probe agency has failed to come out with evidence against him.