Development schemes: PM releases extra funds to appease parliamentarians

Gilani doles out 68% of annual budget in just five months to keep allies content.


Shahbaz Rana December 26, 2011

ISLAMABAD:


In a bid to pacify PPP parliamentarians and appease new allies in the midst of a rising political climate, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has doled out Rs22.4 billion in just five months. The extra disbursements have been critisised for jeopardising budget projections and making a mockery of the austerity campaign.


The amount, given away between July and November this year, is almost 68% of the annual budget earmarked for development schemes for the entire fiscal year, according to sources in the cabinet division.

Of additional concern, allegations of kickbacks in the implementation of such schemes are rife.

The trend indicates that the government is likely to exceed the annual budget of Rs33 billion fixed for parliamentarians’ development schemes. According to the normal formula of releasing the development schemes budget, the government releases 40% of the total budget in first half of the fiscal year and the remaining 60% in the second half.

Reportedly, at least 16% of the allocated budget for any development scheme is wasted in kickbacks – an issue once raised by members of the National Assembly in a parliamentary committee.

The government has earmarked Rs28 billion to spend under the Peoples Works Programme-II in the current fiscal year. The fund is at the discretion of the premier and sources said PM Gilani has already allowed the release of Rs20.2 billion up to November – 72% of the annual budget.

For the Peoples Works Programme-I the approved budget is Rs5 billion. In five months Rs2.2 billion had already been spent, which is 44% of the annual ceiling, sources added.

“The releases are made with the intention to complete development projects before the end of June,” said Rana Assad Amin, a special secretary at the ministry of finance. He said that during the past two to three years the disbursement remained below the annual budgets, leading to a delay in the completion of the projects.

For the current fiscal year the government has set a budget deficit target - gap between expenses and receipts - at 4% of Gross Domestic Product, or Rs850 billion that has now officially been revised to 4.7% or Rs998 billion.

Sources said the PM approved Rs997 million in schemes for the PML-Q’s Minister for Production Anwar Ali Cheema. Similarly, Nadeem Afzal Chan, the PPP member of the National Assembly has received Rs1.2 billion for his development schemes. Chan and Cheema were not available for comments.

The premier is also likely to visit Sarghoda district by the last week of January. He may announce more schemes for parliamentarians in the region.

Asking not to be identified, a ruling party senior member said that the PM had cleared schemes of the PML-Q parliamentarians on the intervention of President Asif Ali Zardari, after the PML-Q threatened to quit the coalition government. There were reports in the media that President Zardari had committed to give Rs17 billion to PML-Q MNAs for development projects.

Due to a scarcity of resources the government has successfully been slowing public sector development expenses. According to the Planning Commission, up to December 15 it has released Rs78.4 billion for development projects, which is only 35.5% of the PSDP component of Rs221 billion.

The total size of the PSDP for the current year is Rs290 billion. Out of that Rs33 billion for parliamentarians’ schemes and Rs36 billion would be provided by the international lending agencies. Similarly, the PPP-led coalition government disbursed only Rs15 billion under the Benazir Income Support Programme, which is 30% of the annual budget of Rs 50 billion.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 26th, 2011.

COMMENTS (1)

Meekal Ahmed | 12 years ago | Reply

This is disgraceful and will only get worse as elections near.

Does anyone check whether these so-called schemes that members of Parliament supposedly put up actually exist? Is there an audit of some kind? Or are they simply handed over the cash?

Of course there will be "kick-backs" especially where there is NIL accountability.

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ