80% of #pakistan's budget speeches termed irrelevant

Evaluating the performance of the National Assembly of Pakistan during Budget Session 2011, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, MNA, has said that approximately 80% of the budget speeches were on non-budget issues.

He was speaking at the Citizens Forum on Performance of the 13th National Assembly of Pakistan: Budget Session 2011-2012, which was organised by PILDAT to analyse the Budget Session Performance of the 13th National Assembly. Abbasi said that quality of the debate was poor “and only few members of the National Assembly understand the Budgetary Process, therefore, budget remains a mystery for most of the members.” “Besides, parliamentary leaders fail to educate their members about the budgetary process,” he added.

Abbasi said that the Finance Minister himself most of the time was absent during the budget debates and he hardly attended any session except budget presentation day.

Other speakers at the Forum included Abdul Rashid Godil, MNA, Wazir Ahmed Jogezai, Former Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly; Abdullah Yousaf, Former Chairman Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, Executive Director of PILDAT.

Presenting an analysis based on PILDAT Citizens’ Report on Performance of the 13th National Assembly of Pakistan: Budget Session 2011-2012, Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, Executive Director PILDAT said that the Federal Budget 2011-2012, tabled in the National Assembly on June 3, 2011 and passed on June 22, 2011 lasted for a dismal 17 actual working days. There was a 16% drop in time consumed in budget debate 2011 compared to 2008; total 35 hours consumed in Budget process in National Assembly compared to 41.6 in 2008. The decade long average of budget sessions from 1998 to 2011 is 12 days while in comparison, in our neighbouring country India, the Parliamentary Budget Process spans over 75 days.

Unlike the practice in other developing as well as mature parliamentary democracies, Standing Committees in Pakistan are not allowed any role to scrutinise departmentally related estimates or demands for grants and therefore no meaningful input is made in the Budget. Mehboob said that while the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab has instituted a Pre-Budget Session every year from January to February, the National Assembly, despite understanding the need to do so in order to allow members to make an input into budget making and priorities, has failed to institute the tradition of a Pre-Budget Session.

Mehboob said that a sharp decline is witnessed in the number of members of the National Assembly participating in the budget debate over the last 4 years of the 13th National Assembly as 39% less MNAs spoke in 2011 compared to 2008. In 2008 budget session, a total of 229 members participated in the budget debate whereas only 139 members participated during the 2011 budget session. The dwindling number of participants may be indicative of the waning interest of members in the budget debate. The budget session is considered by many MPs as a mere formality in which not much role is there for MPs to make any significant contribution. Year after year, MPs demand during the budget debate a greater role for influencing the budget at its preparation stages. It has also been repeatedly suggested that once the budget is presented, the National Assembly should have an increased duration to review it and the demands for grants for ministries should be referred to the respective standing committees for scrutiny before the budget is passed. This key reform in the parliamentary budget process, however, remains elusive. During budget debate 2011, members from across political spectrum forcefully raised that these reforms be instituted in the parliamentary budget process.