REPORT NO. 302 PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS THREE HUNDRED SECOND REPORT ACTION TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS/ OBSERVATIONS CONTAINED IN THE TWO HUNDRED NINETY FOURTH REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS ONTHE DEMANDS FOR GRANTS (2017-2018) OF THE MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES TH (PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON 4 JANUARY, 2018) (LAID ON THE TABLE OF LOK SABHA ON 4TH JANUARY, 2018) Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi January, 2018/ Pausa, 1939 (Saka) Website: http://rajyasabha.nic.in Email: [email protected] PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS THREE HUNDRED SECOND REPORT ACTION TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS/ OBSERVATIONS CONTAINED IN THE TWO HUNDRED NINETY FOURTH REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS ONTHE DEMANDS FOR GRANTS (2017-2018) OF THE MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES TH (PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON 4 JANUARY, 2018) (LAID ON THE TABLE OF LOK SABHA ON 4TH JANUARY, 2018) Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi January, 2018/ Pausa, 1939 (Saka) C O N T E N T S PAGES 1. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE 2. INTRODUCTION *3. ACRONYMS 4. REPORT *5. MINUTES *To be appended at printing stage COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (2017-18) (Constituted on 1st September, 2017) ---------- 1. Shri Anand Sharma –– Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Shri Prasanna Acharya 3. Shri S.R. Balasubramoniyan 4. Shrimati Renuka Chowdhury 5. Shri Rajkumar Dhoot 6. Shri C.P. Narayanan 7. Shri Parimal Nathwani 8. Shri Sharad Pawar 9. Dr. T. Subbarami Reddy 10. Shri Bhupender Yadav LOK SABHA 11. Maulana Badruddin Ajmal 12. Shri Muzaffar Hussain Baig 13. Shri E.T. Mohammed Basheer 14. Shri Pankaj Chaudhary 15. Shri P.P. Chauhan 16. Kumari Sushmita Dev 17. Shri Ninong Ering 18. Shri Laxman Giluwa 19. Dr. K. Gopal 20. Shrimati Vasanthi M. 21. Shri Daddan Mishra 22. Shri Prabhubhai Nagarbhai Vasava 23. Shri Chirag Paswan 24. Shri Shivaji A. Patil 25. Shri Harinarayan Rajbhar 26. Shrimati Sandhya Roy 27. Shri Kirti Vardhan Singh 28. Shri Nagendra Singh 29. Shri Vikram Usendi 130. Vacant 231. Vacant SECRETARIAT Shri M.K. Khan, Joint Secretary Shri T.N. Pandey, Director Shri Mohd. Salamuddin, Additional Director Shri Rajiv Saxena, Under Secretary 1 Shri Nagendra Kumar Pradhan ceased to be a member of the Committee w.e.f. 12th December, 2017. 2 Shri Nana Patole ceased to be a member of the Committee consequent upon his resignation from the Lok Sabha w.e.f. 14th December, 2017 INTRODUCTION I, the Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests, having been authorised by the Committee to present the Report on its behalf, present this Three hundred second report on the Action Taken by the Ministry of Earth Sciences on the recommendations/observations contained in Two Hundred Ninety fourth Report of the Committee on Demands for Grants (2017-2018) of the Department of Science & Technology, which was presented/laid in the both the Houses of Parliament on 31st March, 2017. 2. There were 29 recommendations/observations in the Two Hundred Ninety sixth Report of the Committee. Action Taken Notes on the recommendations/observations of the Committee were received from the Department on 4th August, 2017. 3. In the meeting held on 1st January, 2018 the Committee considered the draft Report and adopted the same. ANAND SHARMA New Delhi Chairman January 1, 2018 Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on 11 Pausa, 1939 Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests Rajya Sabha REPORT The Report of the Committee deals with the Action Taken by the Ministry of Earth Sciences on the recommendations/observations contained in the Two Hundred Ninety-fourth Report of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests on the Demands for Grants (2017-2018) of the Ministry of Earth Sciences, which was presented to both the Houses of Parliament on 31st March, 2017. There were twenty two recommendations/observations in the Report of the Committee. Action Taken notes on the recommendations/observations of the Committee was received from the Ministry on 30th May and 22nd December, 2017. The Committee’s recommendations, action taken thereon and comments of the Committee on the action taken by the Ministry of Earth Sciences are set out in the succeeding paragraphs:- FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF THE MINISTRY AND BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS FOR 2017- 18 Recommendation (Para 4.3) The Committee notes that although there has been a reduction in the budgetary allocation at RE stage during the last three financial years i.e. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Ministry has not been able to utilize the allocated amount optimally and much amount had remained unspent. The Ministry in its Background Note has tried to explain the reasons for underutilisation/savings in the budget for the last three financial years. In most of the cases, delay in finalisation of projects/schemes or deferment appears to be the main reason behind the underutilisation of funds. In few cases saving has been recorded due to delay in approval from the end of Internal Finance Division (IFD) of the Ministry. Interestingly in one case the saving has been recorded due to reduction of oil prices towards use in vessels on expedition to Antarctica. But The Committee finds it hard to believe the reason for underutilisation given by the Ministry at many places that the saving was primarily due to reduction in the budget at the RE stage, which is contradictory in itself, unless the proposed scheme was dropped completely due to reduction. Action taken by Government It is true as pointed out by the Committee that major savings against B.E. for the last 3 financial year cannot be fully attributed reduction of budget at RE stage. However, the minor savings against RE is largely accounted for the left over miniscule amounts under numerous object heads (about 20-25 nos) in each of the scheme. It may kindly be noted that it is not technically feasible to incur/achieve 100% expenditure in all the 20-25 object heads of each of the program, which depends on several factors of day-to-day operational requirement of the centers of MoES, which cannot be anticipated full in well advanced. Accordingly, it may be noted that against RE the financial performance has always been over 95% compared to that of BE about 20-25%. Comments The Committee notes the reply and hopes that the Ministry will make all efforts to ensure that there is no underutilisation of funds in future. Recommendation (Para 4.4) The Committee during the meeting took the above position very seriously and many Members articulated their unhappiness over the state of affairs. The Committee, therefore, recommends that such underutilization by the Ministry should be avoided by taking timely decisions towards implementing the schemes as the Committee strongly feels that there could be a correlation between the delay in the implementation by the Ministry and reduction in the budget at RE stage by the Ministry of Finance. Action taken by Government As suggested by the Committee, the Ministry will make every effort to avoid underutilization of funds in future by taking timely decision towards implementation of the schemes. The Ministry also would accord due diligence to prioritize the activities to minimize the delay in the implementation of schemes vis-à-vis reduction of budget at RE stage. Comments The Committee notes the reply. Recommendation (Para 4.5) While analyzing the reason behind underutilization / saving given by the Ministry, the Committee has taken note of the fact that IFD has also been responsible in delaying the projects which has resulted in the underutilization. The Committee is unanimous over the idea that scientific Ministries should not be treated on par with other Ministries headed by trained bureaucrats as far as financial management is concerned. The Committee feels that scientific Ministries headed by reputed scientists should be allowed to pursue their visions for the country and the Financial Advisers attached to these Ministries should be sensitized to this fact. Action taken by Government The Ministry would like to thank the Committee for the important suggestion. Comments The Committee notes that the reply of the Ministry does not indicate whether it has taken any action on the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee would like to know the action taken by the Ministry in pursuance of the Committee's recommendations. Recommendation (Para 4.8 ) The Committee while understanding that the budgetary allocation to the Scientific Ministry/ Departments should not face any cuts or reduction at the R.E. stage during previous years or in 2017-18, finds it difficult to endorse the idea as the facts during the previous financial years clearly tell a different story which has been expressed by the Committee in above paras 4.3 to 4.5. The Committee finds it further difficult to recommend an additional grant of Rs. 500 cr. as it is not sure about the utilisation of the allocated amount at the BE level to the full. Action Taken by Government The Ministry is grateful to the Committee for consideration to recommend sufficient budgetary allocations to the scientific Ministry. However, the additional grant of Rs. 500 crores required primarily for acquisition of research vessels may be considered in future after evaluating the financial performance in the current year. Comments The Committee notes the reply Recommendation (Para 4.9) The Committee is aware of the fact that after doing away with the distinction of ‘Plan’ and ‘Non-Plan’ heads the Ministries will be tempted to manipulate allocations sometimes owing to exigencies and sometimes to ‘so-called’ priority areas.