Parliamentary panel recommends extending PM-Kisan benefits to farm labourers, proposes incentives to manage paddy stubble and MSP for all organic crops

NEW DELHI: A parliamentary panel recommended that the benefits under the central income support scheme (PM-Kisan) be extended to farm labourers, noting that nearly 55 per cent of the country’s population is engaged in the farm sector but not all as landowners.
Currently, only landholder farmer families receive an annual Rs 6,000 each under the scheme in three equal instalments of Rs 2,000 every four months. There are around 14 crore such landholder farmers in the country, but not all cultivate their land themselves. Many of them give land on informal contracts or rent it to landless farmers for cultivation.
The panel, a parliamentary standing committee on agriculture, also suggested changing the name of the ministry/department from ‘agriculture and farmers welfare’ to ‘agriculture, farmers & farm labourers welfare’.
In its report tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, the panel said renaming may offer several potential benefits as the revised name explicitly acknowledges the significant role of farm labourers in the allocation for the agricultural sector.
“Farm labourers, who often belong to marginalised communities, are a critical part of the agricultural workforce but are frequently overlooked in policy discussions and welfare schemes. This change in name, if done, signals a commitment to addressing their unique challenges, such as low wages, lack of social security, and poor working conditions,” said the panel, headed by Congress Lok Sabha Member Charanjit Singh Channi.
“This could lead to targeted policies for both land-owning farmers and labourers, ensuring equitable development across all stakeholders in agriculture as it aligns with recommendations like establishing a National Commission for Minimum Living Wages for Farm Labourers, which would address wage disparities and improve living standards,” it said.
The 30-member panel, having opposition and ruling parties’ MPs from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as its members, also pitched for the need for enhancement of budgetary allocation to the department and for timely/adequate utilisation of allocated funds.
Referring to the proportion of the budgetary allocation from 2020-21 to 2025-26, the panel said it showed a “continuous decline in allocations” to the department as a proportion of the central plan outlay.
In order to deal with the issue of stubble burning, the panel recommended financial assistance of Rs 100 per quintal of paddy to farmers as compensation for the cost incurred in collecting ‘Parali’ (paddy residue). “This amount should be in addition to the minimum support price (MSP) and directly transferred to farmers’ bank accounts at the time of paddy procurement,” it said.
The panel also supported the creation of a market for crop residue to compensate farmers for the extra costs and effort involved in harvesting, collecting, and transporting it. Potential uses for crop residue include biofuels such as BioCNG and ethanol, as well as direct fuel for brick kilns, furnaces, and thermal plants.
“Establishing crop residue supply chains over an initial period of four to five years will help foster a circular economy in agriculture, turning agricultural waste into a valuable resource. The govt may consider financial incentives for setting up a unit per district where paddy crop is grown to convert crop residue/Parali into energy/electricity,” said the panel.
It underlined that the approach will not only reduce the environmental impact of burning ‘parali’ (stubble) but also create new economic opportunities for farmers and promote sustainability in agriculture.
In a series of other recommendations, the panel also suggested a minimum support price (MSP) for all organic crops in addition to the MSP declared on traditional crops.
“However, the demand for MSP on organic produce should not undermine the broader MSP demand based on the Swaminathan (committee) formula. Instead, the legal MSP framework should be expanded to include organic produce. This would incentivise farmers to transition to organic farming, despite the challenges of lower yields in the initial years of conversion,” said the panel.
It said the farmers will only shift towards organic farming and diversified agriculture if they are convinced that the shift will allow for better economic prospects and benefits than the present form of agriculture.