ADVERTISEMENTS:
Read this essay to learn about the financial committees set up in India.
Financial Committees in India
The financial committees play an important role in the system of Parliamentary control over finances. These committees ensure that the objective of Parliamentary control over finances are fulfiled. The Parliament as a general body is too big to exercise any specific control over public expenditure. It is, therefore, left to the committees to act as the ‘trustees’ of the Parliament in keeping a strict watch over the public purse.
In India, there are three financial committees:
1. Public Accounts Committee
2. The Estimates Committee
3. Committee of Public Undertakings.
Essay # 1. Public Accounts Committee:
In India, the Auditor initially submitted his reports for consideration to the Secretary of State for India and not to the Indian Legislature. It was only with the inauguration of Reforms of 1919 that it was considered desirable to arm the legislature with a semblance of expenditure control.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Government of India, in a dispatch to the Secretary of State, suggested that it should be the constitutional duty of the legislature to appoint a Committee on Public Accounts, to receive reports from it and to deal with them, in so far as might be necessary, by resolutions. Thus the function of the Committee was to be merely of scrutiny and recommendation.
The P.A.C., which came to be constituted in 1923, was partly elected and partly nominated. The Finance Minister was appointed ex-officio chairman of the committee. From its very inception, the committee became a major force in the legislative control of public expenditure.
It exercised great influence in bringing pressure to bear upon Government to enforce economy in the expenditure of public moneys. In course of time very important principles and conventions were developed by the Public Accounts Committee, which survive even to this day, as milestones on the road to the development of parliamentary control over public expenditure.
The Constitution adopted on 26th of January 1950, makes no mention of the Public Accounts Committee.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Parliament derives its power to set up such a committee from Article 118 (i) of the Constitution. Similar power has been conferred on State Legislatures by Article 208 (i). The Parliament has accordingly laid down in Rule 143 of its Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business the composition and functions of the Public Accounts Committee.
Composition of Public Accounts Committee:
The Public Accounts Committee is set up at the commencement of the first session of Parliament. Its strength was initially fixed at 15 members of the Lok Sabha but in 1955, it was increased 22 to provide for the representation of the Council of States.
Though technically the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) is not directly concerned with the voting of supplies, yet as its members were equally interested in the efficient and economic administration of the country, it was considered desirable to associate seven members from that body also with the Public Accounts Committee.
In the words of Prime Minister Nehru, “The association of the nominees of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) with Public Accounts Committee was necessary because the function of the committee was purely investigatory and since under Article 151 (i) of the Constitution, Public Accounts and Audit Reports were to be presented to both Houses, it was open to the Council of States to appoint its own committee but instead of two, it would be desirable if only one committee was appointed.”
So, there is only one Public Accounts Committee including the members from the Rajya Sabha. The inclusion of the members of the Rajya Sabha marks a departure from the British practice where the PAC does not contain any member from the House of Lords.
The members of the Committee are elected by the Parliament from amongst its members according to the principle of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote so that all parties may find due representation on it.
Although theoretically, the members are elected, there is hardly ever a contest in the course of an election. The selection of members is made with great care, usually from amongst those having a financial and business background.
The chairman of the committee is appointed by the Speaker from amongst the members of the committee but if the Deputy Speaker happens to be a member of the committee, he is ipso facto the chairman of the committee.
The chairman has a casting vote in case of a tie. Till the third Lok Sabha, the Chairman of the Committee belonged to the ruling party. In the fourth Lok Sabha, the chairmanship was given to the opposition parties. Although the Committee is elected annually, there is a convention that there should be a two-year term of membership to ensure continuity.
Functions of the Public Accounts Committee:
Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Parliament lays down that:
(i) In scrutinizing the appropriation accounts of the Government of India and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon, it shall be the duty of the Committee on Public Accounts to satisfy itself:
(a) That the moneys shown in the accounts as having been disbursed were legally available, and applicable to the service or purpose to which they have been applied or charged.
(b) That the expenditure conforms to the authority which governs it.
(c) That every re-appropriation has been made in accordance with the provisions made in this behalf in the Appropriation Act, or under rules framed by competent authority under the provisions of the said Act provided that the provision made in this Clause shall not apply to any accounts prior to the year 1950-51.
(ii) It shall be a duty of the Committee on Public Accounts:
(a) To examine such trading, manufacturing and profit and loss accounts and balance sheets as the President may have required to be prepared and the Comptroller and the Auditor-General’s report thereon;
(b) To consider the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in cases where the President may have required him to conduct audit of any receipt or to examine the accounts of stores and stock. (Now this function has been taken over by the Committee on Public Undertakings).
The above rules are self-explanatory. In brief, the main function of the Public Accounts Committee is to examine the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in order to ascertain whether the money granted by the Parliament has been spent by the Government within the scope of the demands.
In other words, it is to see whether moneys as shown in the accounts as having been/disbursed were legally available and meant for the services or purposes for which they have been spent.
The examination of the committee extends beyond the formalities of the expenditure to its ‘wisdom, faithfulness and economy’. It is the duty of the committee, among other things, to draw the attention of the Parliament to cases of improper, wasteful or extravagant expenditure. It is thus to detect frauds or irregularities, malpractices, misappropriation, etc.
Working of Public Accounts Committee:
The Comptroller and Auditor-General submits his report to the President or the Governor as the case may be, who causes it to be laid before the legislature concerned which in turn refers it to the Committee on Public Accounts. The Committee examines the Government’s accounts in the light of the audit report with the assistance of the Comptroller and Auditor- General.
The States’, Public Accounts Committees are assisted by the Accountant-General concerned instead of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. As the accounts of each Ministry or Department come up for examination, the official representative of that Ministry appears before the Committee to answer any objection or explain any points raised by it.
The Committee demands an explanation from each Ministry for the irregularities or the improper transactions pointed out by the audit in the report. These reports contain a summary of proceedings of the meetings of the Committee and its recommendations for improvement.
A copy of the report is forwarded to the Finance Department which takes up the recommendations with the various Ministries/Departments concerned. In case, the Government is unable to implement them, it has to state reasons for the same. The action on the report by the Government is communicated to the committee and is printed in its next report.
The Committee is assisted in its work by the officers of the Auditor-General’s office who help the members in understanding the audit objections and the material on which these are based. The Committee has the power to send for persons, papers and records evidence.
The witnesses are examined. The Auditor-General intervenes if any witness tries to cloud the issue by raising irrelevant points. The Comptroller and Accountant-General is “the acting hand of the committee”, ‘its guide, philosopher and friend’.
The examination of the report by the committee extends ‘beyond the formality of the expenditure to its wisdom, faithfulness and economy’. The purpose of this comprehensive review is to ascertain whether the executive has observed the principle of prudent house-keeping in national expenditure.
It also undertakes a review of the form and details in which the estimates are composed. It pays special attention to the technical accounting procedure employed. It examines the safeguards embodied in financial orders and reviews both the formulation and application of financial principles.
Utility of Public Accounts Committee:
Even though the Committee conducts a post mortem examination of the accounts after their having been audited by the Comptroller and the Auditor-General yet it has been serving a very useful purpose by detecting cases of misappropriation and suggesting economies. It will be worthwhile to record here extracts from some of their reports to be convinced of their utility.
The first report of the Committee on the accounts of 1948-49, among other things, pointed out two instances where consideration of economy had been thrown to the winds.
First, in the purchase of whisky by the Indian High Commissioner in U.K., which was made without calling for tenders and secondly an unprofitable expenditure of Rs. 150 lakhs was incurred on the construction of Barwadi Sarnath railway line in the coal fields of Bihar and West Bengal.
The second report of the Committee for the same year’s accounts drew attention towards the purchase of jeeps (commonly known as ‘jeep scandal’) by the Indian High Commissioner in U.K., which was extravagance and lack of proper financial control over the Indian embassies abroad.
In one of its reports, on the Posts and Telegraphs Department, the Committee noted with concern the increasing incidence of defalcation and loss of public money during 1958-59.
According to the Committee, the incidence during the period was the heaviest ever recorded in the Posts and Telegraphs Department and its employees were responsible for high proportion of such cases in the past. It called upon Government to take deterrent action against those guilty of laxity in supervision.
In its report laid on the table of the Lok Sabha on December 7, 1962, the Public Accounts Committee urged the Government of India to expedite introduction of legislation, defining the duties and powers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General as required under Article 146 of the Constitution.
The Committee also pointed out that large percentage of savings in grants were a common feature observed from year to year. It was not happy over the practice of surrendering funds year after year on the last day of the financial year and hoped that with closer liaison between the indenting and supply departments and the accounts officers, better results would be achieved in future.
The Committee, in its 23rd report presented by Mr. Mahavir Tyagi, on 25th March, 1964 suggested ceiling on the profits from public sector undertakings and asked the Government to appoint a high level inquiry committee to investigate the cases of alleged overpayment of Rs. 100 lakhs by the Hindustan Steel Limited to a firm of Consultants in respect of certain works in the Durgapur project.
It also suggested inquiry into two other cases:
(a) loss of Rs. 27 lakhs due to the supply of defective cement in the construction of certain structures in the rolling mill at Rourkela and
(b) the circumstances in which an order of Rs. 42 lakhs for the supply of ingot moulds and tops to the Bhilai Steel Plant was placed with a firm which quoted comparatively much higher rates and also did not possess the technical facilities for executing the orders.
According to the report, the Indian Airlines Corporation incurred a loss of Rs. 16 lakhs on account of “un-business-like manner” in which the disposal of unwanted Heron aircraft was handled.
The Committee expressed surprise that Air India engaged the services of an American architect at a fee of 1.5 lakh dollars for making preliminary drawings for its multi-storeyed headquarters building in Bombay, even though competent Indian architects were available for the job.
On July 27, 1966, the Prime Minister had to bow to an overwhelming demand in the Rajya Sabha that Mr. S. Bhoothalingam, Economic Secretary, Ministry of Finance, should not be posted to Brussels as India’s Ambassador to European Common Market.
The Public Accounts Committee, in its 50th report, had charged Mr. Bhoothalingam, then Secretary, Ministry of Steel, with a share of responsibility for “loss of exports or consequent loss of foreign exchange” in one of the cases of export promotion scheme.
This shows how the Members of Parliament value the reports of the Committee. In its 55th report, presented on 5th August, 1966, the Public Accounts Committee passed strictures against former Iron & Steel Minister, Mr. C. Subramaniam, for revision of ‘black-listing order’ in 1963.
This is the first case of its kind in the history of the Committee when a Minister (Mr. C. Subramaniam) appeared in person before the Committee and the first case in the history of Lok Sabha when PAC report has been admitted for discussion in the House. (Speaker’s decision on 6th August, 1966).
From what has been said above, it is amply clear that Public Accounts Committee is doing an extremely useful work despite the fact that it has no power to compel any administrative action to be taken on its observations. In the opinion of Mr. A.K. Chanda, “over a period of years the Committee has entirely fulfilled the expectation that it should develop into a powerful force in the control of public expenditure.”
In the words of ex-Speaker Aiyyangar “These recommendations of the Committee are by convention as good as resolutions of Parliament which are binding upon government”, and “although it is open to the Legislature to discuss the reports of the Committee, rambling discussions of the whole report lead us nowhere and tend to destroy the effectiveness of the recommendations of the Committee”.
In the words of A. Prem Chand – “One important factor that helps the implementation of the recommendations is the support that the committee gets from the Ministry of Finance.”
In the U.K. it is said that “an opinion expressed with judicial mildness by the Committee” is enforced with the stronger language by the Treasury in communicating it to the department, and it is said that where the Committee has roared as mildly as a suckling dove, the Treasury roars like a Libyan lion.
In India also the recommendations of the Committee receive the swift attention of the Finance Ministry and even if it does not roar like the rare lions of Gir, yet it makes its opinion felt on the transaction of business by the government through the issue of circulars and other necessary orders.
The critics opine that currently, PAC “has been reduced to a toothless watchdog as the governments have reduced it to a sinecure and its reports have been consigned to dust gathering morgue of secretariat shelves. Rajiv Gandhi wanted the system to change. “…The PAC have been a failure; not that they have failed to do job well….they have not been able to take the result of their labour to its logical conclusion.
Unless parliament asserts itself …The Estimate Committees and Public Accounts Committee will be reduced to the status of powerless bodies….”, Rajiv Gandhi in his address to the chairman of PAC on September 10, 1986.
Essay # 2. The Estimates Committee:
Parliamentary control over public expenditure can be fully effective only when it is comprehensive in its scope and character.
It is not sufficient to ensure that the expenditure has been made economically and prudently and within the grants and for the purposes approved; it is equally necessary to provide for a detailed examination of the estimates presented to the House to secure possible economy in the execution of plans and programmes.
The Public Accounts Committee, carries only a post-mortem examination of public accounts. It cannot, therefore, provide sufficient checks over the excess and misappropriations done by the Executive.
The examination of the estimates presented to the House is done by the Estimates Committee of the Parliament.
The idea of an Estimates Committee in India was first mooted in 1938 when a resolution asking for the constitution of a Retrenchment Committee to secure a reduction in Government expenditure by 10 p.c. was moved. But during the British rule such a Committee was not created because the foreign government could not allow its policies to be criticized.
The Estimates Committee was created in our country after the inauguration of our Constitution in 1950 on the suggestion of Dr. John Mathai, the then Finance Minister, to scrutinize expenditure of each Department of the Government and of the Government as a whole.
Composition of the Estimates Committee:
The Committee is elected every year from amongst the members of the House of the People (Lok Sabha), according to the principle of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote. Its membership was initially fixed at 25 but was later increased to 30.
Its chairman is appointed by the Speaker and if Deputy Speaker happens to be a member of the Committee, he automatically becomes the chairman.
There is no convention that the chairman should be elected necessarily from the opposition party. The Committee is renewed every year but according to convention, only one-third of its members retire every year and usually the same members are re-elected year after year.
Functions of the Estimates Committee:
The functions of the Committee are:
(i) To report what economies, improvements in organisation, efficiency or administrative reform, consistent with the policy underlying the estimates may be effected.
(ii) To suggest alternative policies in order to bring about efficiency and economy in administration.
(iii) To examine whether the money is well laid out within the limits of the policy implied in the estimates.
(iv) To suggest the forms in which the estimates shall be presented to Parliament.
As far (1) above is concerned, the term ‘policy’ is rather a vague one, and Lord Campion called it, “a very indefinite word.” However, the term ‘policy’ was considerably amplified by the then Speaker of Lok Sabha, Mr. Mavlankar, who said that it “relates to policies laid down by Parliament either by means of Statutes or by specific resolutions passed by it from time to time. It shall be open to the Committee to examine any matter which may have been settled as a matter of policy by the Government in the discharge of its executive functions”.
With regard to clause (2) above, it may be mentioned that our Estimates Committee bypasses the British Estimates Committee in its power to suggest alternate policies. The British Committee does not enjoy this power.
Explaining this clause which was added in mid-1953, it was stated that “the Committee shall not go against the policy approved by the Parliament, but where it is established on evidence that a particular policy is not leading to the expected or desired results or is leading to waste, it is the duty of the Committee to bring it to the notice of the Parliament. The fundamental objectives of the Committee are economy, efficiency in administration and ensuring that money is well laid out, but if on close examination it is revealed that large sums are going to waste because a certain policy is followed, the Committee may point out the defects and give reasons for a change in the policy for the consideration of Parliament.”
As for (3) above that the “money is well laid out within the limits of the policy implied in the Estimates”, the Committee literally “goes to the heart of the matter of economy and technical branches in the administration itself which do consider the proposals for economy and efficiency but the Estimates Committee’s approach is from ‘sound common sense’ and general understanding of the problems of economy and efficiency.
It brings to bear upon these administrative problems a ‘people’s approach’ rather than a technical approach.
On July 17, 1957, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha exhorted the Estimates Committee thus “The whole country looks to the Estimates Committee to suggest ways and means of economizing the expenditure. If we are not able to suggest economies which will catch the imagination of the people, we will not be doing much.”
As for (4) above, the Committee is mainly interested in seeing that proper classification of the ‘charged’ and ‘voted’ expenditure has been done in the Budget Estimates and in case it is not satisfied, it refers the matter to the Ministry of Finance or to the Minister of Finance.
Working of the Estimates Committee:
The procedure which the Committee has adopted for its work is that it selects the subjects concerning the estimates of the Ministry or Ministries to be examined during the year under review. It then proceeds to collect the necessary information through standard forms which it sends out to the Ministry or Ministries whose activities are to be reviewed.
The form is as follows:
(a) The organisation of the Ministry and its attached and subordinate offices.
(b) The fractions of the Ministry and its attached and subordinate offices.
(c) Broad details on which the estimates are based.
(d) Volume of work in the Ministry covering the period of estimates and given for the purpose of comparison, corresponding figures for the past three years.
(e) Schemes or projects which the Ministry has undertaken. (The expenditure, period within which they are likely to be completed, yield if any, progress made to date, should be stated).
(f) Actual expenditure incurred under each sub-head of the estimates during the preceding three years.
(g) Reasons for variations, if any, between the actual of the past years and the current estimates.
(h) Reports, if any, issued by the Ministry on its working.
(i) Any other information that the Committee may call for, or the Ministry may think it necessary or proper to give.
The information thus collected from the Ministry concerned is circulated amongst the members of the Committee. When the Committee meets, it may frame further questions to get such information as it may desire. The Committee usually divides itself into sub-committees and each sub-committee is assigned one part of scrutiny work.
The Committee can summon officials of the Ministry or its officers to furnish such information as the Committee may ask for. Herein, it may be mentioned that the Committee must so conduct itself as to get the necessary information from the officials without offending them.
As the Speaker of Lok Sabha once pointed out, “you must get information from them without offending them, just as a bee sucks honey from a flower without destroying it. It is rather a difficult matter.” It may also summon non-officials to tender evidence.
Further, it may even undertake tours to examine the work of field establishments of the Ministry. The Committee then draws up a report and submits it to the House of the People (Lok Sabha). There is no formal debate on the reports of the Estimates Committee.
It is open, however, to any Member to refer to the report at the time of the general discussion on the budget, and when the estimates concerned are under consideration.
As the Estimates Committee is a committee of Parliament drawing its authority from it, its recommendations are naturally given due consideration by the Government. If the Government feels unable to accept particular recommendation of the Committee, it makes a representation to the Committee to reconsider its recommendation.
If the Committee re-affirms its earlier recommendations the final decision rests with the Parliament.
The recommendations in the ‘follow up’ report are categorized in four parts:
1. Recommendations that have been accepted by Government.
2. Recommendations which the Committee do not desire to pursue in view of Government’s reply.
3. Recommendations in respect of which replies of Government have not been accepted by the Committee.
4. Recommendations in respect of which final replies of the Government are still awaited.
Utility of the Estimates Committee:
The Estimates Committee has done useful work in spotlighting the various acts of omission and commission of the Government. In its various reports submitted from time to time, the Committee has suggested valuable reforms, both administrative and financial, besides acting as a ‘Standing Economy Committee’.
Its second and ninth reports (First Lok Sabha) dealt with reorganization of the Secretariat and Departments of the Government of India and Administrative and Financial Reforms.
The Committee made broad surveys on the problems of ‘Budgetary Reform’ and ‘Growth of civil expenditure’, etc. It made useful studies of the various aspects of Financial Administration such as “expenditure control, revenue collection, mint management, national savings organisation”, etc.
The Committee has also made important studies on the general problems of public sector undertakings, such as management, forms of public enterprises and budgeting in those fields.
In its report on the International Trade Wing of the State Trading Corporation as presented to the Parliament on March 26, 1964, it rapped the Corporation for earning profits to the extent of 100 to 200 per cent on some of its commodities.
The Estimates Committee’s fifty-second Report on ‘Personnel Policies of Public Undertaking’ (1963-64) based on the staffing pattern of 58 public sector corporations and government companies is a great commendable work of the Committee.
In this report, it spotlighted huge ‘over-staffing’ and ‘lack of scheme of executive development’ in public undertakings, etc. In its tenth report tabled in the Lok Sabha in April 1992, it suggested the need to give a statutory status to the Central Bureau of Investigation with well defined legal powers.
In its report on the Central Board of Direct Taxes it recommended simplification of tax laws in order to ensure generation of greater revenue. The committee also recommended the separation of audit from accounting which was implemented by the Government.
The control exercised by the Estimates Committee is not always direct. It is only by its influence, by the fear and awareness that such a body is there to examine certain aspects of governmental activities, that can make its presence felt and thereby make its control effective.
Unlike its counterpart in U.K., the Estimates Committee is not organised on party lines and hence it can present a better picture of economy and efficiency in administration.
The control exercised by the Committee, as the late Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Shri G.V. Mavlankar, pointed out, consists essentially in being:
(a) Judicial in approach,
(b) In representing the people’s approach,
(c) In preventing the executive from being apprehensive,
(d) In creating a training ground for the Legislators,
(e) In influencing the policies of the government, and
(f) In acting as a link between the people and the government.
While proposing the constitution of an Estimates Committee, Dr. John Mathai, the then Finance Minister, had expressed the hope that it would exert healthy influence upon the course of public expenditure. He had further observed that its suggestions and criticisms would give very useful guidance to the Government in the matter of regulating expenditure.
It is gratifying to note that his hopes have been realized and the Estimates Committees both in the House of the People and the State Assemblies have justified their existence by discharging their functions successfully.
But it is an unhealthy trend that the Estimates Committees are laying more emphasis on a review of the policies of the Government and of the structure of departmental organisations to the relative exclusion of a detailed scrutiny of the estimates for which they are primarily meant.
They are said to be behaving like the ‘inquisitorial’ Congressional Committees in U.S.A. and becoming “fault-finding rather than fact-finding mechanism.”
Mr. Ashok Chanda has levied the following criticism of the Estimates Committee:
(i) The Committee’s emphasis on review of the policies of government and of the structure of the departmental organization has substantially altered the character and purpose of the committee.
(ii) Instead of a fact-finding body, it is converting itself into a fault-finding mechanism.
(iii) With its floating membership it can hardly be sufficiently familiar with the details of administrative processes and problems to be able to suggest fruitful lines of administrative reform.
(iv) The Committee is arrogating to itself a role which constitutionally, belongs to the House of People.
(v) The recommendations of the Committee on matters of administrative re-organisation, reconstitution of departments and redistribution of functions may have a publicity value, but in most cases have hardly any practical utility.
These criticisms are not without force. Therefore, it is desirable that in order to prove more effective and useful as a mechanism of parliamentary control they should be concerned with scrutiny with a view to suggesting possible economies within the estimates presented to the House rather than interfering with the functions of other authorities.
They should not give a feeling that they give a mere big list of advices. The Speaker of the Third Lok Sabha rightly pointed out that 97 per cent of the Committee’s recommendations were accepted by the Government. As such, it can be argued that majority of its recommendations have been wise and useful.
Essay # 3. Committee of Public Undertakings:
This Committee was set up in 1964. It consists of 15 members—ten from Lok Sabha and five from Rajya Sabha.
Functions of the Public Undertaking Committee:
The functions of the Committee are:
(a) To examine, in the context of the autonomy and efficiency of the Public undertakings, whether their affairs are being managed in accordance with sound business principles and prudent commercial practices;
(b) To examine the reports, if any, of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on Public Undertakings;
(c) To perform such other functions vested in the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee, in relation to public undertakings, as may be allotted to it from time to time by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha;
(d) To examine the reports and accounts of such public undertakings as have been specifically allotted to the Committee for this purpose.
The Committee is precluded from examining or investigating the following matters:
(i) Matters of major government policy as distinct from business or commercial functions of public undertakings;
(ii) Matters of day-to-day administration; and
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(iii) Matters for the consideration of which machinery is established by a special statute under which a particular undertaking is established.
Utility of the Public Undertaking Committee:
The Committee has lightened the burden of other two Committees of the Parliament. Besides, being a Committee specially meant to examine public undertakings in which the high investments are involved, it helps the Parliament in having a comprehensive understanding of the working of these undertakings. Its method of work is practically the same as that of the Estimates Committee.
However, it will not be out of place to point out that even with the best of will and effort on the part of our Parliament and Committee on Public Undertakings, detailed parliamentary surveillance of the public undertakings has not been a feasible proposition. It is also questionable whether such detailed surveillance was really necessary and whether it was going to be of any practical utility in any meaningful manner.
Still it is an undisputable fact that the Committee on Public Undertakings has proved to be an effective instrument of control and contributed substantially towards greater efficiency and economy in the management of public undertakings by its constructive and valuable recommendations made from time-to-time.