The Standing Committee on External Affairs (Chairperson: Dr Shashi Tharoor) submitted its report on ‘Issues Relating to Migrant Workers including Appropriate Legislative Framework and Skill Development Initiatives for Prospective Emigrants’ on January 2, 2019.
Migration policy and data: The Committee noted that India does not have a migration policy. This affects India’s ability to use the potential offered by Indians in the international labour market. The Committee therefore, recommended that India should frame a coherent migration policy. In addition, the Committee noted that despite the growing scale of migration, statistics and data was not readily available. It recommended that the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) should maintain a database on various aspects of migration such as profile of migrants, their job profile, and country of destination.
Unauthorised recruitment agents: The Committee noted that the problem of unauthorised recruitment agents has increased, and a majority of workers are being sent abroad by them. The MEA responds to complaints against such agents by forwarding their details to the concerned state police. The Committee recommended that MEA should take suo moto actions by engaging Protector of Emigrants offices in states or districts where more complaints are received. Further, these offices should lodge complaints with the local police so that illegal recruitment can be curbed.
Skill development: The Committee noted that the limited skill sets of migrant workers is a major hindrance in finding overseas employment. The MEA highlighted five core elements in preparing the workforce for global mobility including: (i) alignment of qualifications with global standards, (ii) infrastructure development, (iii) credible assessment and certification framework, (iv) pre-departure orientation, and (v) job linkage. While the MEA stated that there has been progress on the first two elements, the Committee recommended that all five elements should be taken into account while framing standards for skill development.
Referral wages: The government has fixed minimum referral wages to regulate wages of Indian workers employed in the Emigration Check Required countries (those that require emigration clearance from the office of the Protector of Emigrants). The Committee noted that these wages have not kept pace with economic changes in the destination countries, which may result in reduced preference for Indian workers. It recommended that MEA should coordinate with the Ministry of Labour and set up a committee for reviewing the referral wages on an annual basis.
Gender and migration: The Committee noted that the government’s approach towards female migrant workers focused mostly on ensuring their protection and safety. However, this may be a short-term approach that impacts the opportunities of women migrants. The Committee recommended that there is an urgent need for a gender-sensitive migration policy, which takes into account gender-specific concerns and risks. This policy should be based on the larger objective of not only protecting but also empowering women. Further, the Committee recommended that a 24*7 women helpline should be established in Indian Missions abroad.
Emigration Bill: The Committee noted that in light of significant changes in migration patterns, the current legal provisions are inadequate to deal with issues confronting migrant workers. While the MEA is drafting an Emigration Management Bill, the Committee expressed concerns over delay in the introduction of the Bill. The Committee recommended that the Bill be finalised and presented to Parliament without further delay. Further, the Committee recommended various provisions that should form part of the Bill. These include: (i) providing Migrant Worker Welfare Centres at international airports to provide information, (ii) creation of a digitized database with records of all migrant workers, their recruitment companies, skills, and educational qualifications, and (iii) creation of a separate department under the Protector of Emigrants to investigate complaints of exploitation and abuse by recruiters.
The Standing Committee on External Affairs (Chairperson: Sh Ramesh Bais) submitted its report on ‘Assessment of the Working of Tribal Sub-Plan’ on January 3, 2019. The Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) aims to bridge the gap between the Schedule Tribes (STs) and the general population with respect to all socio-economic development indicators in a time-bound manner. Key observations and recommendations of the Committee include:
Allocation of Funds: The Committee noted that earlier, earmarking of funds towards TSP was done by the concerned Ministries against their Plan allocation. After the merger of Plan and non-Plan expenditure, the Ministry of Finance revised the rate of allocation of funds towards TSP in December 2017. Currently, there are 41 central Ministries implementing TSP through different schemes. The Committee noted that the allocation of funds towards TSP by various Ministries has been meagre after the merger of expenditure heads.
The Committee recommended that the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (Ministry) should direct all Ministries to earmark funds according to the prescribed percentage allocation of their total scheme outlays. Further, it recommended that the Ministry ask the Department of Rural Development to allocate funds for its flagship Schemes like MGNREGA under TSP to ensure that benefits of these Schemes reach to tribal people. The Committee also recommended that the Ministry direct all Ministries to furnish a bi-annual statement regarding scheme-wise expenditure under TSP.
Allocation of funds by states: The Committee noted that according to the guidelines for earmarking funds to states under TSP, the state governments are required to allocate funds out of their total plan outlays, in proportion to their tribal population. It noted that some States are not adhering to these guidelines. For example, in 2015-16 and 2016-17, Madhya Pradesh did not allocate funds as per the proportion of tribal population of these States. The Committee recommended that the Ministry pursue the matter with all states and ensure that funds towards TSP are earmarked as per the guidelines.
Under-utilisation of allocation by states: The Committee observed that for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17, many state governments are not fully utilizing funds allocated to states under the TSP. The Committee recommended that the Ministry should monitor state-wise expenditure of TSP expenditure, particularly in the tribal dominated States, by holding meetings with secretary level officers of the state governments on quarterly basis.
Shortfall in Health Centres: The Committee observed that there is a shortfall of 1,240 Primary Health Centres (PHCs), 273 Community Health Centres (CHCs) and 6,503 sub-Centres in Tribal areas as on March 31, 2017. The Committee were informed that Ministry has formulated a proposal to ensure adequate health infrastructure in 94 Scheduled Tribes-dominated districts, where tribal population is 50% or more. The Committee noted that 40 of these districts still do not adequate health infrastructure in the form of PHCs. The Committee recommended that the Ministry should ensure availability of facilities and doctors in PHCs and CHCs by giving regular advisories to the state governments and concerned Ministries.
Data on beneficiaries: The Committee noted the Ministry did not have the data of the beneficiaries of various schemes implemented by different Ministries under TSP. It noted that the Ministry stated that the status of implementation of various projects and their outcome is maintained by the concerned Ministries of the state governments. The Committee recommended that the Ministry should develop a mechanism to collect data of performance of various schemes, for assessment of the success of TSP
The Standing Committeeon Information Technology (Chairperson: Mr. Anurag Singh Thakur) submitted its report on ‘Setting up of Post Bank of India as a Payments Bank- Scope, Objectives, and Framework’ on January 8, 2019. The Indian Post Payment Bank (IPPB) is a financial service provider, launched with the mandate of improving financial inclusion through the postal network in the country. The IPPB is a public sector company under the Department of Posts. Key observations and recommendations of the Committee include:
Aadhar-based authentication: The Committee stated that Aadhar-based authentication is vital for financial inclusion. Therefore, the Committee was concerned about the potential impact of the Supreme Court judgement on the IPPB (the Court struck down Aadhar linkage where no subsidies or benefits were involved). The Committee observed that discontinuation of Aadhar-based authentication had a negative impact on the vision and business model of IPPB. It recommended that IPPB should take up the matter with UIDAI/RBI for suggesting alternative modes of authentication.
Recruitment in IPPB: The Committee noted that IPPB was recruiting staff through direct recruitment, deputation from Public Sector Banks, and professional search firms for specialised resources. However, out of 3,500 banking professionals proposed to be employed, IPPB has only recruited 2,152 employees so far. The Committee recommended that the recruitment process should be expedited, and that it be informed of the steps taken by IPPB in this regard.
Service-level agreements: In order to ensure that the work of Department of Posts (DoP) does not get affected while performing IPPB-related activities, IPPB have built Service-Level Agreements (SLAs) in consultation with DoP. The SLAs specify details related to working hours, transaction limits, and turnaround time for business operations. The Committee recommended that DoP and IPPB should develop a mechanism to monitor that all elements of SLAs are fully practiced to ensure long-term sustenance of IPPB. Further, the IPPB and DoP should periodically review the SLAs.
Training of users: The Committee noted that training of end users was one of the major challenges faced by IPPB. In this context, it recommended that training courses should be conducted periodically for end users to upgrade their skills. Further, it recommended that IPPB should explore the possibility of associating their staff with schemes under the Digital India programme such as National Digital Literacy Mission.
Competitiveness: The Committee noted that IPPB is likely to face stiff competition from private payment banks (such as Airtel, Jio, and Paytm payment banks). It observed that that the 4% interest rate offered by IPPB is lower compared to other payment banks. In order to increase their customer base and compete with private players, the Committee recommended that the current interest rate may be reviewed.
Digital literacy: The Committee observed that IPPB had only 9,000 merchants on the ground, of which 10% were active. Given the low level of merchants enabled on the ground, the Committee recommended that IPPB should focus on digital literacy, consumer education, and hand-holding of merchants in rural and remote areas.
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) released a performance audit of the Accelerated Irrigation Benefits Programme on January 8, 2019. The Accelerated Irrigation Benefits Programme (AIBP) was launched in 1996 as a central assistance programme and is currently implemented by the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development, and Ganga Rejuvenation. AIBP was initiated with the aim of accelerating the implementation of irrigation projects that exceed the resource capabilities of states. Key findings and recommendations include:
Irregular inclusion of projects: AIBP provides eligibility criteria such as the cost of a project, the stipulated time period, and the stage of completion, among others, for the inclusion of projects and schemes under its purview. In its report, the CAG noted that of the 201 Major, Medium Irrigation (MMI) projects undertaken between 2008-17 (the period covered by the audit), 30 projects were in violation of the criteria prescribed. Amongst Minor Irrigation (MI) schemes, the audit found 41 cases of inclusion of schemes that violated criteria. It found that these irregularities in inclusion had led to losses amounting to Rs 3,718 crore.
Benefit Cost Ratio: The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), which measures the ratio of annual benefits from irrigation to the annual cost of providing those benefits, is essential for determining the economic feasibility of a project. The CAG observed that in 28 MMI projects in nine states and 82 MI schemes in 10 states, uniform parameters were not used for the calculation of BCR. Inadequate surveys and assessments of water availability, among other deficiencies, contributed to inaccuracies in calculated BCRs. The report observed that actual BCRs were likely lower than those calculated, leading to modifications in design and revision of cost estimates. As a remedy, the CAG recommended that BCRs for projects be reviewed continuously and be based on realistic assumptions.
Delay in releasing funds: Between 2007-17, the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development, and Ganga Rejuvenation released Rs 19,184 crore for 115 MMI projects and Rs 12,809 crore for all MI schemes. As per the CAG report, there was short release of funds in various projects, resulting in non-realisation of revenues amounting to Rs 1,251 crore. The audit attributed this shortfall to delays in the submission of proposals by states and lapses in the release of funds by state governments. Additionally, the report found that Utilisation Certificates for funds amounting to Rs 2,187 crore were not submitted to the Ministry of Water Resources in time. The CAG recommended that state governments be held responsible for conducting adequate checks on work and creating systems of accountability for deficient execution.
Diversion of funds: Test checks of project reports found that funds to grantees had been diverted and utilised for expenditures not permissible under AIBP. The CAG report determined that a total of Rs 1,578 crore were diverted in 13 states, as a result of which projects were deprived of funds necessary for timely completion. The report also highlighted financial irregularities caused by parking of funds in bank accounts and fraudulent expenditures.
Lack of deterrents: As per AIBP guidelines, failure to complete a project on time would result in the grants being treated as loans that would later be recovered from the state government. In its audit, the CAG found that the Ministry of Water Resources had failed to invoke this provision for 105 projects facing delays ranging from one year to 18 years. This had in turn led to a weakening of the provision as a deterrent against slow implementation.
Cost overrun: Delays in the implementation of projects, inefficient work management, combined with changes in the scope of projects resulted in a cost overrun in 84 projects from Rs 40,943 crore to Rs 1,20,772 crore. The CAG found that cost overruns were caused by factors related to: (i) delays in land acquisition, (ii) delays in rehabilitation and resettlement measures mandated by the Land Acquisition Act, and (iii) undue favour given to contractors. The CAG noted that some of these delays could have been avoided and pointed to deficiencies in monitoring by central and state agencies. It recommended that the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development, and Ganga Rejuvenation ensure regular monitoring of performance at state and central levels and intensify efforts towards completion of projects.
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) released a performance audit of Capital Acquisition in the Indian Air Force on February 13, 2019. The audit examined 11 contracts of capital acquisition signed between 2012-13 and 2017-18, with a total value of approximately Rs 95,000 crore. In addition to examining systemic issues in the acquisition process, the CAG also reviewed the procurement process of 36 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) through an Inter-Governmental Agreement with the Government of France. Key observations and recommendations of the CAG include:
Planning and tendering process: The process of acquisition of air assets starts with the formulation of user requirements known as the Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR). CAG observed that the formulation of ASQR is the most crucial stage in the defence acquisition process as it determines the quality, price, and competition. The CAG had recommended in 2007 that ASQRs should be stated in terms of functional parameters, which are measurable. However, it noted that instead of using functional parameters, the Indian Air Force (IAF) made the ASQRs exhaustive and included technical details. This led to situations where none of the vendors was able to meet the ASQRs. Further, the ASQRs were repeatedly changed during the procurement process. In this context, the CAG repeated its recommendation that ASQRs should be stated in terms of functional parameters. Further, it recommended that technical experts with knowledge of the systems being considered could be involved in the acquisition process.
Solicitation of Offers: Offers are solicited from various vendors by issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP). Vendors respond to the RFP by making technical and commercial bids. CAG noted that there was limited competition during this process. The number of vendors who responded to the RFP were less than those invited to bid. This was because of various reasons including delays in the acquisition system and narrowly defined ASQRs. CAG recommended that the Defence Ministry should explore open competitive tendering in case of non-strategic items (such as basic trainer aircraft, and weather radar).
Technical evaluation: The CAG noted lack of consistency in technical evaluation across procurement cases. In some cases, such as Doppler Weather Radars and Attack Helicopter, technical bids were rejected when vendors failed to meet all the ASQR parameters. However, in the case of MMRCA and Heavy Lift Helicopters, bids were technically qualified even when they did not meet critical ASQRs.
Commercial evaluation: A Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC) is constituted to evaluate the price bid and negotiate the final contract. Before opening the price bid the CNC is required to estimate the benchmark price, which is used to assess the various bids. The CAG noted that in eight cases, the benchmark price was significantly different from the bid price. It observed that repeated off-the mark pricing reveals inability to estimate the market price.
Organisational issues: The CAG noted that delays in acquisition were essentially due to a complex and multi-level approval process. From the initiation of the case to the signing of the contract, each procurement case goes through 11 stages. The CAG stated that the current acquisition system is unlikely to support the operational preparedness of the IAF and recommended that the Defence Ministry may undertake structural reforms of the entire acquisition process.
Acquisition of MMRCA: The CAG examined the procurement process of the MMRCA. It observed that IAF had proposed in August 2000 to acquire 126 Mirage 2000 II aircraft. This proposal was discarded in 2004, and in 2007 a decision was taken to acquire 126 Rafale aircraft from Dassault Aviation. However, the commercial negotiations with Dassault could not be concluded. In 2015, a decision was made to procure 36 Rafale aircraft through an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) with the French government. While comparing these two deals, the CAG stated that price of the 2015 deal was less than the price of the 2007 deal, by 2.86 per cent. Further, the CAG noted that the 2007 deal included a Bank Guarantee from the French government. This meant that in case of default by the vendor, the French government would provide payment. However, the 2015 deal did not include a Bank Guarantee.