Spending on VVIPs' security, luxuries questioned: Govt defends supplementary budget
By Amjad Mahmood
LAHORE, June 29: The government is spending billions of rupees on extending security cover and luxuries to VVIPs at a time when a majority of people in the province are deprived of basic necessities of life.
Seeking explanation from the government for the huge amount sought through supplementary budget for the year 2003-04 for the purpose, the opposition in the Punjab Assembly questioned the legality of supplementary grants.
Opening general discussion on over Rs36 billion supplementary budget, deputy opposition leader Rana Sanaullah alleged that the additional grant had been sought in violation of the Constitution and Punjab budget manual rules.
He argued that additional grants for any department could either be sought to meet any crisis not anticipated while preparing budget or if cost of an ongoing public welfare project had somehow increased.
But this was not the case, he said, reading out various demands for grants for the purchase of helicopters and bullet-proof vehicles for the security of VVIPs and renovation of chief minister's houses in Murree, Islamabad and Lahore, etc.
He alleged that the government, which had been claiming of good governance, plundered resources to acquire luxuries and to fortify its security while the rest of the province had been left at the mercy of terrorists and outlaws.
Rana Sana, who complained that the treasury bench elders were taking notes of his speech, warned the rulers that their attitude might drew public wrath and armoured vehicles would fail to save them.
Taking part in the discussion, law minister Raja Basharat said the government through better financial management had generated revenue more than the set target and had the right to spend the same.
Defending huge allocations for VVIPs security, he said making security arrangements for the president, prime minister and chief ministers was legal and moral duty of any government.
He said the chief minister could not come to office on foot but in a car and emphasized that it must be a high class vehicle. Launching a counter attack, Raja Basharat said in past stables for horses and cricket grounds had been developed in the prime minister's house.
Foreign interior designers were invited for decorating chief minister's house, he added. Rana Sana questioned if the additional revenue could not be used for some public welfare project.
MMA's Arshad Baggu said the volume of supplementary budget depicted that assessment for the annual budget was not right. He said the government could have used extra resources on the wedding of poor girls.
Excise minister Dr Shafiq said the budget also included Rs12 billion allocation for food security and Rs8.0 billion for development projects. PML-N's Mujahid Ali Shah said the government had itself caused insecurity for the VVIPs by supporting US bombing of Afghanistan and killings in Wana, south Waziristan.
Recalling Shahbaz Sharif's era as chief minister, he said the then government had banned spending on luxury items and vehicles notwithstanding pressure from his cabinet.
He questioned utility of provincial sports minister when not a single penny had been allocated for sports in the budget. The minister should be removed, he argued. PML-N's Sheikh Ijaz wondered the government could have collected Rs10 billion through good governance but it had spent around Rs36 billion over and above the budget estimates.
PPP's Tanvir Ashraf Kaira regretted that those who could not plan for a year were giving the vision 2020. He alleged that the funds earmarked for constructing roads and bridges were utilized in Gujrat, the native town of the chief minister, and the fact was concealed by not giving names of district(s) where these funds were utilized.
PPP's Ehsan Elahi Nolatia said the additional grants were against the spirit of Punjab budget manual rules. He wondered why all the departments required extra funds on urgent basis.
He said rules say that supplementary budget in nature was bad management of finances and objectionable as a principle. Shafqat Abbasi asked the government why Punjab was not being paid royalty for Ghazi Barotha project.
He also objected to consuming budget during last three months of a financial year. He criticized handing over of the Punjab House in Murree to the president, saying it was an identity of the province.
Ruling coalition's Malik Muhammad Ahmad wanted the law and finance ministers to clarify the legal points raised by the opposition to avoid being highlighted in the media the supplementary budget as a violation of rules.
Winding up the discussion, finance minister Husain Bahadur Dreshak defended legality of the supplementary grants saying budget could not be a static document. Flexibility was the spirit of budget otherwise meeting social and economic necessities of the masses would be delayed for a year until next budget.
He said inclusion of all the three types - current, development and capital - of expenditures had made the supplementary budget fabulous. Otherwise, he said, additional financial grants had been more than in the past than today.
He said allocation of Rs12 billion for food security and as much amount for ADP was also included in the supplementary budget. He denied that the government was failing in better management of provincial resources.
He said the chief minister had submitted Rs3.0 billion claim for Ghazi Barotha royalty for this year with the federal government. He rejected the claim raised by a treasury member in his budget speech that providing one million jobs each year, the total number of employed people would become more than the population of the province itself by the year 2020.
