FORTY-NINTH REPORT PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITI'EE (2003-2004). (THIRTEEN1H WK SABl:IA: INFRUcruous EXPENiinuRE OF Rs. 29 CROR& COMMUNICA110NNEfWORK MINlSTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS [Action Toan on 61h Report of Public Accounts Committee (12th Lolc Sabha)) Pre3ented to Lok Sabha on 8.S. 2003 LAid in Rajya Sabha on 8.S.2003 LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI May, 2003/Yauaklla. 1925~ CONTENTS PAGE CoMPOsmoN OF THE Puauc ACCOUNTS CoMM11TEE (2003-2004) (iii) INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... (v) PART A CHAPTER I Report ............................................................................. CHAPTER II Recommendations/observations which have been accepted by Government ............................................. .. 5 CHAPTER Ill Recommendations/observations which the Committee do not desire to pursue in the light of the replies received from Government ............................................ CHAPTER IV Recommendations/observations replies to which have not been accepted by the Committee and which require reiteration .............................................. .. 31 CHAPTER V Recommendations I observations in respect of which Government have furnished interim replies ................ .. 32 PART II Minutes of the Sitting of Public Accounts Committee (2003-2004) heldon06.05.2003 ..................... +................. 33 APPENDIX Recommendations and observations............................ 35 COMPOSITION OF 1HE PUBLIC ACCOUNTSCOMMIITEE (2003-2004) Sardar Buta Singh - Chairman ~EMBERS Lok Sabha 2 Shri Haribhai Chaudhary 3. Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi 4. Shri M .. O.H. Farook -5. Dr. Madan Prasad Jaiswal 6. Shri Raghunath Jha 7. Dr. K. Malaisamy 8. Dr. M.V.V.S. Murthy 9. Shri Rupchand Pal 10. Shri Mohan Rawale 11. Dr. Nitish Sengupta 12. Shri Raghuraj Singh Shakya 13. Shri Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh 14. Shri Kirit Somaiya 15. Shri Chinmayanand Swami Rajya Sabha 16. Shri Santosh Bagrodia 17. Shri Prasanta Chatterjee 18. Shri K. Rahman Khan 19. Shri Bachani Lekhraj 20. Dr. Alladi P. Rajkumar 21. Shri C.P. Thirunavukkarasu 22. Prof. Ram Gopal Yadav SECRETARIAT 1. Shri P.D.T. Achary Additional Secretary 2 Shri S.K. Sharma Joint Secretary 3. Shri Devender Singh Deputy Secretary 4. Shri J.M. Baisakh Assistant Director (iii) IN1RODUCI10N I, the Chairman, Public Accounts Committee having been authorised by the Committee to present the Report on their behalf, do present this Forty Ninth Report on action taken by Government on the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee contained in their 6th Report (12th Lok Sabha) on lnfructuous Expenditure of Rs. 29 Crore-Communication Network. 2. This Report was considered and adopted by the Public Accounts Committee at their sitting held on 6th May, 2003. Minutes of the sitting form Part•n of the Report. 3. ·For facility of reference and convenience, the recommendations of the Committee have been printed in thick type in the body of the Report and have also been reproduced in a consolidated form in Appendix• to the Report. 4. The Committee place on-record their appreciation of the assistance rendered to them in the matter by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. NEW DELHI; SARDAR BUTA SINGH, 6May,2003 - Chairman, 16 Vaisakha, 192S(Saka) Public Accounts Committt1t1. •Not appendied to the ~ycloatyl~ .copy of the Report. (v) CHAPTER I REPORT This Report of the Committee deals with the action taken by Government (Ministry of External Affairs) on the observations/recommendations of the Committee contained in their 6th Report (Twelfth Lok Sabha) on Paragraph 4.1 of the Report of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India for the year ended 31 March, 1996 (No. 2 of 1997), Union Government (Civil) regarding lnfructuous expenditure of Rs. 29 crore - Communication Network. 2. The Sixth Report which was presented to Lok Sabha on 17th March, 1999, contained 15 observations/recommendations. The action taken notes on all these observations/recommendations have been received from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and these are broadly categorised as follows: (i) Recommendations and observations which have been accepted by Government Sl.Nos. l,4,5,6, 7,9, IO, 11, 13, 14, 15 (ii) Recommendations and observations which the Committee do not desire to pursue in the light ofreplies received from Govern1J1.ent SI. Nos. 2, 3, 8, 12 (iii) Recommendations and observations replies to which have not been accepted by the Committee and which require reiteration -Nil- ( iv) Recommendations and observations in respect of which Government have furnished interim replies -Nil- Setting up of High Frequency Radio Communication Network 3. The MEA approved a Project in August 1988 for setting up of High Frequency Radio Communication (HFRC) network for linking 27 missions abroad with New Delhi to facilitate voice and data communcation in the event of emergencies in the host coµntries which could lead to disruption of normal communication facilities. The Project was scheduled to be completed by November 1989. 4. in their 6th Report, the Committee observed that number of.t;.quipment- related and operational problems had plagued this Project right since its inception. Apart from abnormal delay in the ex.ecution of the Project, the role of Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. entrusted with the task of project management for consultancy, procurement, engineering and installation of equipment, was far from satis:-~ctory. The Committee concluded that the MEA failed miserably to implement the HFRC project and that the inept handling of the Project by the MEA had rendered the expenditure of over Rs. 29 crore questionable and defeated the basic objective .of providing reliable communication network between New Delhi and identified Missions. 5. The action taken notes furnished by the MEA have been reproduced in the relevant chapters of this Report. In the succeeding paragraphs, the Committee however, deal with the action taken by Government on some of their observations/ recommendations. Utility of the HFRC System (SI. Nos. 13-14 Paragraphs 49-50) 6. In their 6th Report, the Committee observed that even after a delay of over ten years, out;0fthe twin objectives ofHFRC i.e. voice and data communication, only voice communication had been partially established. The Committee concluded that the MEA did not do proper and sound spade work before committing themselves to such a heavy expenditure. This also brought into sharp focus the actual need and urgency of su~h a system, the availability of other alternative means of communication and their comparative reliability and cost. In the light of the inherent defects in the system, uncertainty about their rectification, unreliability of their availability in actual times ofneed and possible obsolescence, the Committee took a view whether it would be wise to close the project, to salvage whatever is possible and save further cost in its maintenance a~d operation. The Committee recommended that the Project should be evaluated by an independent group of experts to decide the future of the Project. 7. It is seen from the action taken notes that the MEA had constituted a high- level expert group chaired by the Foreign Secretary to review the future of the HFRC Project. Considering that the HFRC equipment was meant for standby and emergency use, the high cost of maintaining such equipment was not considered appropriate, when more reasonably priced alternatives, easier to maintain and operate, were available. The expert group therefore, recommended scrapping the existing HFRC system and to provide in its place satellite telephone systems based on more modem technology, for the emergency use of designated missions. The expert group had also recommended for utilising the equipment to the best advantage of the Government by handing it over to Government agencies or departments that currently use wireless communication. The Project was accordingly closed down with the approval of the External Affairs Minister and MEA approached the Directorate of Coordination (Police wireless), Ministry of Home Affairs, the Cabinet Secretariat (R&A W) and the intelligence Bureau, to make use of the equipment currently located in New Delhi and Missions abroad. MEA had also separately taken up with the Ministry of Finance the possibility of waiver of the customs duties in case of importation of equipment from our Missions abroad for use by these agencies. The MEA vide their communication dated 17 February 2003 intimated that ihe Ministry of Finance regretted their inability to grant exemption from payment of customs duty on the equipment which was to be brought back from Mission abroad for use by Government agencies and department who were interested in taking the equipment. MEA further stated that in July 2002 Intelligence Bureau and Cabinet Secretariat expressed their unwillingness in taking over the equipment due to their age (10 years) and the non-availability of spare parts. The Directorate of Coordination (Police wireless), MHA had not responded to MEA's proposal till February 2003. According to the MEA, they had written to the Director General of Police in Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh on whether they would be interested in obtaining the equipment at a "no-cost'' and on "as is where is" basis. The response from these states was awaited. In their communication, the MEA however, viewed the utilisation perspective of the equipment in the following lines: "In view of the technological obsolescence of the equipment as a result of