PARLIAMENT

Fruits of Economic Development to benefit all - Minister Nimal Siripala

Sandasen Marasinghe, Irangika Range and Disna Mudalige

Budget passed with a majority of 101 votes

Sandasen Marasinghe, Irangika Range and Disna Mudalige

The Appropriation Bill (Budget) 2013 was passed in Parliament by a special majority on Saturday with 158 members voting in favour and 57 against.

The division was asked by DNA MP Sunil Handunnetti. The vote was taken by name, The UNP, DNA and TNA voted against the Bill.

Amendments to clause two and seven were presented by Leader of the House and Irrigation and Water Resources Management Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva before the Bill was passed.

Opposition Whip and UNP MP John Amaratunga objected to the amendments and therefore the Leader of the House asked for divisions at two occasions.

The Second Clause of the Bill was passed with amendments with a majority of 101 votes.

One Hundred and Fifty-Nine members voted in favour, where as 58 voted against during this vote. The division was taken by name.

The clause seven was passed with amendments with a majority of 101 votes. One hundred and fifty-eight voted in favour where as 57 voted against. The vote was taken by row.

The Budget 2013 was presented by President Mahinda Rajapaksa in his capacity as the Finance Minister on November 8. The second reading which commenced on November 9 continued for seven allotted days. The second reading of Budget 2013 was passed in Parliament with 156 votes in favour 53 against on November 17.

The Committee State debate which commenced on November 19 continued for 16 allotted days until last Saturday. The vote on the 3rd reading was taken around 7.00 pm on Saturday.

Parliament was adjourned until January 8.

Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa presided when Parliament met at 9.30 a.m. on Saturday. After presentation of papers and oral questions, the House took up the Committee Stage debate on the Appropriation Bill 2013 for the twenty third allotted day.

The Committee took up the Finance Heads of the Finance and Planning Ministry for debate.

Dr. Harsha de Silva (UNP): Today is a dark day for Sri Lankans. When I talk about NSB issue, I disclosed lots names. But the government is talking only about Pradeep Kariyawasam. Why is action not been taken against other people responsible for this issue. Why does the government not appoint a Committee to probe these racketeers and punish them? Are you going to punish only the Chief Justice? The government is protecting racketeers. The Government incurred huge loss by investing money on Greek bonds. The loss was exceeded over that Euro 6.6 million. Why does the Government made this investment? Who gave the authority to make these investments? Why are you not punishing the people involved in this investment? The NSB is only one such issue. But there are so many issues like, EPF, Galadari, and Raigam Salt. Why are you not taking about these issues.

Sarath Amunugama, Finance and Planning Deputy Minister: I would like to take this opportunity to refer to the concerns raised by the Leader of the Opposition and several other members of the Opposition, regarding the Government's stand on the Supreme Court determination pertaining to the Appropriation Bill for 2013. You would recall, that the Leader of the House, at the vote for the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill clarified to the House, that the appropriate time for this discussion is the Committee Stage of the Budget. Therefore, I would like to explain the relevant facts pertaining to the two sections in the Appropriation Bill to which the Supreme Court's attention has been directed.

The Supreme Court has directed its attention to two sections, one is, Clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill which authorizes the Government to raise loans in or outside Sri Lanka subject to specified annual ceilings. The Second aspect is Clause 7(1), which permits the Minister of Finance, subject to the approval of the Cabinet (Government) certain actions in the event of an unexpected fall in Government revenue or under expenditure in certain provisions.

The Appropriation Bill for 2013, is not the first of its kind in this Parliament. Over the years, Appropriation Bills have been presented to the Parliament using the same language and format and hence the 2013 Appropriation Bill is not an exception to this practice and procedures.

Honourable Members would note that the content of Clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill referred to in the determination are identical, except for figures, with the provisions embodied in previous legislation enacted as far back as from the year 1961 and loans are presently raised adhering to the provision of respective applicable legislations. You would further observe that the proposed amendment in the determination with regard to raising of loans to meet cash flow requirement and the conduct of regular Treasury operations is impractical.

Honourable Members would also note that the content of clause 7 of the Bill referred to in the determination had been introduced in 1975 and has remained identical to date, with the addition of words ‘to meet any authorized expenditure’ in 2002 consequent to a determination made by the Supreme Court in 2002. It should be noted that the Ministry of Finance and Planning has not come across the application of this clause for a long period of time, underscoring that such provisions are generally of a “Stand-by” nature and are used only when grave circumstances so demand in an eventuality, to facilitate the management of public finance in the country.

You would note that the Section 2(1)(b) of the Appropriation Bill 2013, as in the case of previous Appropriation Acts specifies the maximum amount of loans to be raised whether in or outside Sri Lanka, on behalf of the Government. All loans are raised in terms of the provisions of various statutes subject to the ceilings specified in the respective laws and within the overall authorized limits specified in the Appropriation Act for the respective year. All these activities are managed by the Department of Public Debt of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka in close consultation and coordination with the General Treasury in terms of Annual Budget operations. Since all loans are serviced in accordance with the provisions of the respective special laws, debt servicing aspects will not be carried out under the Appropriation Bill.

As far as domestic loans are concerned, under Section 89 of the Monetary Law Act No. 37 of 1947 (as amended), Central Bank of Sri Lanka provides Provisional Advances, on the basis that every advance shall be repayable within a period of not exceeding 6 months and the total of such advance outstanding at any time shall not exceed an amount equivalent to 10 percent of the estimated Government Revenue in the Budget Estimates of the Financial Year in which they are made. Such advances are free of interest.

The Government also raises loans under the Local Treasury Bills Ordinance No. 8 of 1923 (as amended) with a maturity not exceeding one year, subject to authorized outstanding limits under that Ordinance. The Public Debt Department of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka on behalf of the Government, conducts this operation through Primary Dealers recognized by the Central Bank. The Treasury Bills operations are conducted to meet uneven cash flow situations that arise from revenue lags and expenditure leads. Recognizing such situations, the law requires that the Central Bank itself subscribes to such issues of Treasury Bills. However, depending on Monetary Policy considerations pertaining to domestic liquidity and money supply, the Central Bank also uses its holding of Treasury Bills to conduct monetary policy operations by trading (purchasing and repurchasing) such Bills. As the Central Bank, during the last 20 years has increasingly moved towards conducting monetary policy based on market instruments such as interest rates and exchange rates, the determination of yield rates of Treasury Bills is left to market forces, unless the Central Bank considers that an intervention is necessary, in an exceptional circumstance.

Treasury Bonds which are of medium to long term maturity, are floated by the Public Debt Department of the Central Bank, in terms of the Registered Stocks and Securities Ordinance No. 7 of 1937, at the request of the Treasury, to meet Government borrowing requirements as permitted in the relevant Appropriation Act. The maturity and interest rates of these bonds depend on the medium to long-term yield curve, assessment of the availability of liquidity at different maturities and government's cash flow needs. These operations are also conducted through Primary Dealers recognized by the Central Bank. The rate of interest of Treasury Bonds is therefore market determined.

Both Treasury Bills and Treasury Bonds also have secondary market transactions. As in the case of Provisional Advances, a fair amount of Treasury Bills and Treasury Bonds are floated to re-finance existing loans at maturity. Further, Rupee Loans are also issued under the said Registered Stocks and Securities Ordinance.

However these administrative debt instruments are no longer issued as the country has shifted away from such instruments in the backdrop of financial sector reforms carried out since 1977 and only a declining stock of Rupee Securities remains under this category. Up to a 12.5 percent of outstanding Treasury Bills are also permitted for foreign investments as per a Monetary Board decision to reflect global integration of the Country's financial market. Hence, you would agree that loans raised in Sri Lanka to meet expenditure itemized in detail, in the Budget Estimates submitted to Parliament following the presentation of the Appropriation Bill and refloating of existing loans are subject to complex operational processes but are carried out within Parliament approved ceilings, in compliance with the applicable statutes, and also well within the overall ceiling prescribed in the Appropriation Act for the relevant Financial Year.

On the other hand, Foreign Loans are raised in terms of Foreign Loans Act No. 29 of 1957 (as amended). The Government raises such loans under 4 categories;

The first category consists of loans are raised from Multilateral Development Agencies such as the World Bank (WB) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The terms and conditions of these loans are common to all member countries, based on accepted categorizations. Selection of various projects and programs are determined through a consultative process between respective agencies, line ministries and the Ministry of Finance and Planning under the guidance of the Cabinet of Ministers. Such projects and programs and the related financing arrangements are reflected in the Annual Budget Estimates submitted to Parliament.

The second category involves Government borrowings from well-established bilateral Government development agencies. The terms and conditions of these loans are determined by such bilateral government development agencies and are common to all countries eligible to borrow from such agencies. Currently, Sri Lanka borrows from Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF) of Korea, Saudi Fund for Development (SFD), OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID), Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED), Kreditanstalt for Wiederaufbau (KfW) etc.

The third category consists of borrowings from EXIM Banks of various governments i.e. India, China, Korea, USA, Malaysia, Hungary and Japan (JBIC) and reputed credit agencies which lend for project financing. The maturity structure, interest rates and other terms of such loans are negotiated through an intensive process under the guidance and approval of the Cabinet of Ministers. The term-structure of such loans also varies from project to project, depending on the socio-economic benefits and gestation periods of such projects.

It should be noted that as the Sri Lankan economy has graduated to a middle income country status exceeding its per capita income well beyond US$ 1,000, the available concessional funds are fast depleting. In fact many Scandinavian and European countries no longer provide outright grants and concessional loans to Sri Lanka as the country is no longer a Less Developed Economy (LDC). They lend through export import banks and their terms are largely market guided. The available funds from UN Agencies such as the World Food Program (WFP) are also no longer accessible unless in very exceptional circumstances. Concessional funding from ADB (ADF) and World Bank (IDA) are also on the decline. Middle income country status and the post conflict situation would further reduce the access to concessional funding and outright grants. Therefore, a greater flexibility in loan operations should now be recognized more than before.

Each foreign loan is examined by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank as required in terms of the Monetary Law Act on monetary implications, with special reference to debt servicing capacity and Balance of Payments. All loan agreements are approved by the Attorney General and a final Legal Opinion is issued by the Attorney General, confirming inter alia compliance with the laws of Sri Lanka, which is a pre condition to make a loan effective. All foreign borrowing agreements are executed after having obtained the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers and the special authorization by the President, in terms of the Foreign Loans Act.

The fourth category of borrowings are raised from foreign financial markets, under the Foreign Loans Act No. 29 of 1957 (as amended) Foreign currency denominated Sovereign International Bonds are issued in international markets, with the participation of internationally reputed financial and legal advisors and fund managers selected through a competitive bidding process. All related contractual agreements are entered into by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka and the Ministry of Finance and Planning with the approval of the Attorney General and the Cabinet of Ministers. Such borrowings are all within the overall ceiling specified in the relevant annual Appropriation Act. The tenure and interest rates of such loans depend on the size of the loan, market conditions and the international sovereign country rating. These ratings are given by internationally reputed rating agencies having examined the country's economy and finance as well as the relevant legal provisions to operate in international capital markets.

Honorable Speaker, you would agree, that debt raising and its management is a continuing process that involves complex operational aspects and warrants a fair degree of confidentiality, which cannot be maintained unless operational freedom is fully secured. Hence, obtaining prior approval for such transactions or seeking ratifications for transactions already concluded is not practical and is likely to have an impact on the national interest and economic stability, since it is likely to have implications on the continuous operations that are being carried out with checks and balances.

I am sure that the Parliament would appreciate that during the past several years the Ministry of Finance and Planning, has expanded its reporting coverage in the report published in terms of the Section 13 of the Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Act, No. 03 of 2003, providing a comprehensive coverage on the conduct of public finance and associated government accounts and financial statements duly certified by the Auditor General. In addition to this report a separate report is also submitted to the Parliament together with the submission of Budget Speech in compliance with the Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Act. This Fiscal Management report consist of the Fiscal Strategy statement in compliance with Section 4,5 and 6 and Budget, Economic and Fiscal Position Report in compliance of Section 8 and 9 by the Minister of Finance. A mid-year Fiscal Position Report contains the performance of government revenue, expenditure, cash flow operation and borrowings during the first 4 month of the year. This Report also provides updated information, depending on the availability information, price development, foreign aid, government debt and official reserves. This report is issued by the Minister of Finance and Planning under the section 10 of the Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Act, which required the Minister of Finance and Planning to present the Mid-year Fiscal Position Report to the public and thereafter lay it before Parliament. All these reports have been submitted well on time and Parliament has not made any adverse remarks on these reports or the material contained therein. A greater appreciation on these reports has also been received from the international financial community and general public.

There is no doubt that the Constitution stipulates that Parliament shall have full control over Public Finance. In doing so I am sure that the forefathers did not expect what was proposed in the determination. That responsibility is vested in the Government through different legislation enacted by Parliament in respect of revenue, borrowing, debt servicing, and expenditure authorization. Hence, these are time tested provisions, used by successive Governments, as being essential for the effective management of Public Finance. Operations carried out in terms of such Acts are subject to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Committees on Public Accounts and Public Enterprises (COPA and COPE). The Appropriation Bill is also one such arrangement through which the Parliament authorizes limits on expenditure as well as borrowings, for each year. Successive Government's therefore have come to Parliament, following a well established tradition, practices and legislative process to get the Parliamentary sanctions. The Budget process, conduct of public finance, and its multifaceted operational aspects have been carried out within that framework.

Therefore , Mr. Speaker, if every decision envisaged in Section 2(1)(b) of the Appropriation Bill, is to require the prior approval of Parliament, it is a reflection that Parliament itself is called upon to engage in routine operational aspects of the Government and the powers vested in the Cabinet and respective Ministers by the President would serve little purpose. In modern Governments, delegation subject to proper reporting and accountability has been recognized for grater efficiency.

As we all know, transactions connected with public finance are an ongoing process as explained earlier and take place on a daily basis. If this determination eventually leads to default payments of salaries, pensions, contractual obligations and debt services, owing to pre-occupation in micro management, the entire country will have to face consequences to which the Government is ultimately answerable. It should be noted in this country every successive government has maintained the credibility of honouring debt obligations, both domestic and international, as well other contractual obligations and public accountability.

Honorable Speaker in this background, the Government is of the view, that it is not advisable to compromise the operational freedom provided in 2(1)(b) in the Appropriation Bill since it has far-reaching implication on the management of the economy and finance.

It should also be noted that although Article 123 of the Constitution requires the Supreme Court to stipulate which Article in the Constitution should be complied with, to pass the Bill as it is, this Determination is silent on the same. However, in view of the total impracticability that stems from the incorporation of suggested amendments in the determination that make the Government to require obtaining approval of the Parliament for each and every Loan transaction and considering the far-reaching implication on the conduct of Public finance and furthermore that the Appropriation Bill is an annual authorization for borrowing and expenditure the Government considers that the Parliament should recognize the flexibility accorded to the Government to conduct Public Finance whilst at the same time be aware of the concerns raised by the Supreme Court.

Honourable Speaker, I will not go into details of all sectoral investment activities that have been reflected in the 2013-2015 medium term development framework for which the 2013 Budget has given a “big push.”

Let me dwell on at least on one serious macro economic aspect. The 2013 Budget has committed to a Budget deficit of 5.8 percent of GDP – the lowest ever since 1977. We have committed to this, having proved ourselves that deficits can be reduced without cutting welfare and development spending. The Government has not privatized any enterprise either. This year, in 2012 we are pleased to announce, that despite many challenges and particularly with the drought, the Government has kept the deficit target of 7.2. The deficits of double digits are a thing of the past. The same is proved for inflation, same is proved for unemployment and poverty. Shouldn't the Minister of Finance and Planning take the credit for it? Look at the struggles other countries are making to bring the deficit down, they are going through painful, unstable, violent paths. This has not been the case in Sri Lanka. Look, at the banking system here, all the banks are well-capitalized and remain sound. Non-performing loans of all banks remain below critical levels. The banking system does not remain vulnerable which is also not the case in many other countries today. Shouldn't the Central Bank take the credit for this? They have performed well, in terms of their regulatory responsibilities. Many of you spoke about Debt. Our Debt to GDP ratio have fallen to about 80 percent of GDP. Our intention is to bring this below 70 percent of GDP. This can be done only by maintaining a higher economic growth of well above 6 percent, gradual reduction in Budget deficit and managing well distributed debt portfolio, not only in terms of domestic and foreign debts but also in terms of proper maturity structures.

This is what the Government has done in the last several years. While the Government has reduced the debt to GDP to 80 percent of GDP, most of our debts are payable over 15-20 years time. Out of the total debt stock, only 0.13 percent is payable within one year and 54 percent is payable over 15 years. Therefore taking the entire debt stock and dividing that by this year's GDP is not going to give a justifiable indication of economic health for us. Debt to GDP ratio matters for countries where, the Debt is payable in the shortest period of time. We don't have such risks. Further, we don't have commercial or other debt instruments which are on demand. Even the Commercial loans the government has raised are now at ten year maturity instruments.

They are currently trading about five percent though we raised this at around seven percent. This improvement is because the Sri Lankan economy remains buoyant and reflect a positive outlook.

The Government's entry to the international capital market has established a benchmark, for the country's, financial sector internationally. Following the issue of Sovereign Bonds by the Government, the Bank of Ceylon and the private sector have lined up their entry as well. The leading corporate sector and the development banks are expected to move in this direction. When this happens, excessive demand for borrowing from domestic banks will decline. When that happens, small and medium sector's access to finance will improve and that is how the economy will move.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the attempt by the Government to systematically bring down fiscal imbalances excessive borrowings, public debt, money supply, inflation and unemployment are economic aspects that everyone of us in Parliament must value. And this Budget must be viewed in the context these positive outcomes although all the risks and problems in Sri Lanka cannot be resolved with just one single Budget.

Mavai Senathirajah (TNA): The President when he presented the budget as the Finance Minister said the aim of it is to make a poverty free Sri Lnaka. It was said the per capita income was about USD 2800 last year. But this figure was an illusion. Poverty rates in the districts of the Northern and Eastern Provinces have increased when compared with past statistics. For some families there is no income avenue at all.

How many families in these areas actually earn the said USD 2800 per capita income? What about the people in camps? What is their income?

COPE Chairman D.E.W. Gunasekara presenting last year's report stated that he lacks certain powers to take effective action. More powers should be vested upon the COPE.

Telecommunication and Information Technology Minister Ranjith Siyambalapitiya: The government should in some means earn the money it spends. About 95 percent of this income has been found from taxes. The tax should be used to discourage the things we need to discourage for a better economy.

The sectors which should be encouraged must be exempted from tax. If the government can effectively do so, it can maintain a good fiscal management. The budget caters to implement the proposals in the Mahinda Chinthana. This policy is different from the UNP and JVP policies. So there is no wonder that they criticises it.

John Amaratunga (UNP): The money of the Employees Trust Fund has been invested in the stock market. The employees are helpless now.

Vasudeva Nanayakkara (National Languages and Social Integration Minister): The deals you talked about will be investigated at the COPE Committee. If there is misuse of money, they will be divulged.

We maintain that the country's economy has to be developed as a whole. The expansion of the economy alone cannot be identified as economic development.

We must take measures to develop the under developed sections and make them contribute to the economy. We have taken measures to give the cost of living benefits given to the people in 2006 which was deprived to the public servants during the UNP regime.

We have to find out if the tax reliefs are really contributing towards economic development. But there is no such mechanism. So it is high time to attend to that matter. The Mahinda Chintanaya intends to uplift the poor.

Sajith Premadasa (UNP): Good governance should be strengthened for economic development. If we want to maintain the economic development rate at 8 percent we have to establish good governance. If we want to increase percapita income to US$ 4,000, we have to guarantee natural justice to the people.

Manusha Nanayakkara (UPFA): The Budget 2013 was prepared with a futuristic vision. Budget 2013 has accorded the highest priority to infrastructure development activities that have been reflected in the 2013-2015 medium term development framework.

This is aimed at attracting more investors to the country. Proposals in this 2013 budget had been formulated considering economic transformation in both urban and rural areas. Currently, the country maintains very strong foreign reserves. Our debt to GDP ratio has fallen to about 80 percent of the GDP. Our intention is to bring this below 70 percent of the GDP.

Akila Viraj Kariyawasam (UNP): Fraud and corruption are rampant in the country. The Customs Department has incurred a loss of Rs. 1,000 million due to rampant corruption. Today, the cost of living index has increased. People undergo severe hardships. The budget has not given any relief to the ordinary people. A number of public institutions have collapsed due to mismanagement and corruption.

Rohitha Abeygunawardane (Ports and Aviation Deputy Minister): UNP members always said that people are undergoing severe hardship. If the people are suffering a lot, why have they given the biggest mandate to the government at previous elections. Why did people vote against Ranil Wickremesinghe at 21 previous elections. Why has Ranil Wickremesinghe suffered defeat on 21 occasions? I would like to ask the UNP members, whether there was a single port constructed during the UNP regime. I would also like to know whether any airport was constructed during the UNP regime. The country has experienced rapid development after President Mahinda Rajapaksa assumed duties in 2005. There were no carpeted roads in those days. Today all roads in rural and urban areas have been carpeted. We have renovated and constructed six harbours and one airport.

Dayasiri Jayasekera (UNP): The black economy in Sri Lanka has increased from 30 percent to 58 percent. As a result of the Hedging deal, substandard oil, losses incurred at Mihin Lanka and a huge amount for black money has flowed into the underworld economy. No proposal has been included in Budget 2013 to prevent the flow of black money into the country.

Plantation Industries Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe: During the UPR in Geneva, I pointed out the progress achieved in implementing two action plans – the National Action Plan for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and the LLRC Action Plan devised by the Task Force. 98 countries made interventions on that occasion and I am proud to state in this House that 90% of those who spoke acknowledged that progress had been made in overcoming the post-conflict challenges and in moving towards comprehensive reconciliation.

Even those few countries that pointed out that challenges still remain to be overcome, were compelled to acknowledge our record which demonstrated the Government's commitment in this regard.

During the course of the interactive dialogue two countries expressed the expectation that the due process should be adhered to in the impeachment – news of which had just been received. I immediately took the floor to answer those two delegations and said that the Constitution provided for the impeachment of a judge. I explained further that one third of the Members of Parliament have to sign a resolution identifying grounds for removal which has to be handed over to the Speaker.

Thereafter a Select Committee of Parliament would be constituted from among Members of both sides of the House and a resolution had to be then adopted by Parliamentary majority, after which removal is permitted.

I stressed that what had been set in motion was a constitutional process envisaged by the Supreme Law and Standing Orders of this House. Any process that follows the pre-determined process set out in written law cannot be said to be a violation of any principal of due process.

The process leading to the removal of a judge of a Superior Court in Sri Lanka – known as the impeachment process – has been envisaged in the 1978 Constitution and has been given specific ambit and scope through Standing Orders, specifically as amended in 1984.

This process has been used on two previous occasions. Whatever the academic and theoretical arguments on the merits of this process, at this point of time this is the constitutionally mandated process.

Deputy Speaker Chandima Weerakkody takes the Chair.

Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake: Some MPs criticized the Greek Bond investment. The profit we obtained last year by investing in the international market was Rs. 430 billion.

Greek Bond investment resulted in a loss. This is the nature of this kind of investment. We have to take risks. The accuracy of statistics presented in the House should not be challenged. The economic statistics we present are calculated following the United Nations system.

We compile our statistics in accordance with the IMF manual on government statistics. These indices and statistics are scrutinized by the Auditor General's Department. If we do not make our statistics in keeping with the international standards, no foreign country or organization will have faith in them.

The economic growth rate of the entire world is 3.5 percent. But the economic growth rate of Sri Lanka is 6.5 percent. This is an achievement.

Single digit inflation rate has been maintained and the rate today stands at 9.5 percent. The unemployment rate in Sri Lanka is 3.9 percent. But about 600,000 vacancies are available in the private sector. There are only about 400,000-500,000 unemployed people in Sri Lanka. In reality, there is no unemployment issue in Sri Lanka.

The unemployment question has emerged because our people are looking for government jobs, while some are trying to go overseas. The unemployment rates in Western countries are very much higher.

The poverty rate was 28.8 percent in 1995, 15.2 percent in 2007 and 7.6 percent at present. The State debt burden as a ratio of the GDP has gone down to 78 percent. The interest rate of the government's loans is below 2 percent.

Ravi Karunanayake (UNP): The government has incurred huge loss by investing money in Greek bonds. The government has now been forced to print money to cover up its losses. But, finally, the innocent people have to bear all these burdends. The government does not have any futuristic vision. The loss incurred by the transport sector was over Rs. 3,000 million.

Nimal Siripala de Silva Irrigation and Water Resources Management Minister: We will fulfill the needs of the people in keeping with the Mahinda Chinthanaya future vision.

Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa takes the Chair:

Poverty level has been reduced. The country has achieved 8 percent economic growth. We have embarked on a massive development programme. President Mahinda Rajapaksa is conducting review meetings to ensure development across the country. We have taken all measures to ensure food security. Plans are a foot to initiate innovative programmes to strengthen the economy and provide the benefits of economic growth to the people. No one can topple the government. We are ready to rectify our shortcomings.

We are committed to convert Sri Lanka into the Wonder of Asia with the implementation of the fruitful proposals in the Mahinda Chinthanaya. Finance Head of Finance and Planning Ministry was passed without amendments.

The House was adjourned until 1 p.m on January 08.