news details |
|
|
| External Affairs Ministry has inefficient monitoring system | | | BL KAK
NEW DELHI, JULY 22: India’s prestigious Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has inefficient monitoring system, according to the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG). The CAG’s none-to-old report has also highlighted lack of internal control of the MEA in providing passport, visa and consular services in Indian missions and posts abroad.
This phenomenon has resulted in loss of revenue of Rs 8.90 crores. That the MEA could not brush aside the CAG’s criticism was borne out by the Ministry’s instructions to all missions and posts abroad to ensure efficient and methodical functioning. Nonetheless, the CAG’s report let it be known: Sample check of records of some missions and posts in Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries disclosed that the MEA has not introduced an efficient system of monitoring and internal control in the matter of realization of fees for passport, visa and consular services. Sample check in 14 missions and posts disclosed further loss of revenue of about Rs 8.90 crores which was attributable to the negligence of the missions and deficient monitoring system in the MEA.
The MEA’s perturbation was real than apparent when the CAG’s comments were taken up by the parliamentary standing committee on External Affairs. Responding to the query from the parliamentary panel, the Ministry of External Affairs stated: “The perceived loss is due to fluctuation in the exchange rate. Partly6 due to exchange regulations applicable to the countries and taking regard of local sentiments, collection for the US dollar was not enforced by the missions in South East Asia and South Korea. The then prevailing commercial rate of exchange between the local currencies and the US dollar had been adopted by these missions for collection of visa fees. Viewed differently, there was no loss as the dollar equivalent of fees realized in local currency could not have been less than the amount that would have been collected had the fees been charged in US dollars”.
Six new missions and posts have already been opened in Kabul, Mandalay, Mazare Sharief, Herat, Kandahar and Jalalabad. The government has planed to open new missions and posts in as many as 12 countries. Opening of new missions invariably involves additional requirements of funds. The parliamentary standing committee is unable to comprehend as to how the MEA would achieve the economies and reduce the administrative expenses by moving exactly in the opposite direction with the opening of new missions and posts instead of reducing the number of these centres or exploring the possibility of having joint missions.
Hence, the standing committee’s recommendation: with a view to reducing the administrative expenses, the Ministry of External Affairs should conduct a thorough review to assess the need and desirability of opening and upgrading Indian missions in different countries of the world and also to explore feasibility of having more joint missions for two or more countries. This would also resolve, to some extent, the problem of shortage of staff faced by some of the missions.
Serious exception has been taken to the lack of decision by the Ministry of External Affairs for more than three decades on construction of the Embassy complex on the plot of land gifted by the government of Brazil. The project has already been delayed for over 37 years. This has resulted in cost escalation from an estimated 3.37 lakh US dollars in 1971 to an estimated 20 lakh US dollars in June 2000 and the time-frame for construction ranging from July 1,202 to December 31, 2005 has been unduly prolonged.
The parliamentary panel has refused to accept the MEA’s view that it is not economically viable to accommodate all offices, missions and residences in own buildings. Considering the long-term benefits, the External Affairs Ministry cannot escape devising a well defined long-term policy to accommodate their offices, missions, residences in their own buildings to be acquired or constructed in time-bound manner with sufficient budgetary allocations and continuous monitoring, evaluation and control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
