Lynford Simpson, Staff Reporter
FIVE DAYS after it was accused of disbursing more than $170 million to the Parish Councils for 'bollo work' in the weeks leading up to the Local Government elections due later this month, the Government is yet to deny claims by the Opposition that the money has been disbursed, and is yet to state the source of the funding.
Audley Shaw, Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Spokesman on Finance, made the allegations on Tuesday in the House of Representatives, during a heated debate on a censure motion he had brought against Finance and Planning Minister, Dr. Omar Davies, over statements he made regarding public spending.
Mr. Shaw claimed the money that was sent to the cash-strapped Parish Councils was being used by the governing People's National Party (PNP), to rev up its election machinery just before the elections.
Following a fiery debate which lasted roughly 10 hours, during which both sides accused each other of being more corrupt and being involved in bigger scandals, the Government used its majority in the House to defeat the motion to censure Dr. Davies. The vote, which came in the early hours of Wednesday morning, was 31 to 23.
The money Mr. Shaw referred to is reportedly for flood relief and will be used, among other things, to repair roads damaged by a series of floods in 2001 and 2002 and to clear blocked drains. Although it had indicated that it was seeking funding from overseas to assist with flood relief, the Government has not said where the money came from. It only denied Mr. Shaw's claims that it was being used for "bollo work".
Accusing the Government of lying, Mr. Shaw said: "The latest piece of deception (is) a special $172 million fund that was sent to the Parish Councils last week." He said the money was "suddenly found and sent... as part of the strategy to once again rev up the election machinery (of the PNP)..."
The Opposition spokesman charged that money was not found to deal genuinely with those who suffered damage to property, crops and livestock. "But as an election approaches once again the Government has miraculously been able to find $172 million, not for genuine flood relief but a little bollo work on the corners... for election."
It was at this stage that the debate first descended into chaos. At this point, John Junor, the Minister of Health, rose on a point of order and denied that the Government was spending money on 'bollo work'. He questioned whether Mr. Shaw was aware of the programme of work that the money covered and what was the basis for indicating that it was being used for 'bollo work'.
Mr. Shaw was then asked by House Speaker Michael Peart to explain the charge and to define 'bollo work'. This he described as work officially identified as Government contract, formal work, whose quality is questionable. These, he said, usually come just before an election.
Without denying that the money was recently allocated, Portia Simpson Miller, Minister of Local Government, said: "Any money that is assigned to Parish Councils at this time came by way of requests from the secretaries of the Parish Councils for work to be done on certain roads or to clean certain drains ..." She said money was never allocated on a partisan basis.
Insisting that Mr. Shaw had imputed motive, Mr. Peart insisted that he withdraw his charge of 'bollo work' before being allowed to continue his presentation.
Said Peart: "Once you suggest motive, Mr. Shaw, and you are not in a position to prove it, you have to withdraw." Dr. Peter Phillips, Leader of Government Business in the Lower House, said the inference was clear that Mr. Shaw had accused Dr. Davies of sending money to the Parish Councils for 'bollo work', a breach of the Standing Orders that govern the running of the House.
At the insistence of the Speaker that he withdrew his statement, the debate was reduced to a virtual shouting match with both sides throwing insults at each other. At this stage, Opposition Leader Edward Seaga threatened that the Opposition members would walk out if the Speaker insisted that Mr. Shaw withdraw his statement.
"This side does not intend - and I say this with great regret - to withdraw the statement. If you insist, we shall walk out," Mr. Seaga stated.
This led to a brief recess after which Mr. Shaw rephrased his comments, putting them in the form of a question.
