Premier Jennifer Smith yesterday condemned Opposition leader Pamela Gordon for wrongly claiming she spent more than $100,000 of tax-payers' money on flowers.

She said - contrary to Ms Gordon's suggestion - that the total bill for flowers last year was approximately $25,000, and that spending on flowers for the Progressive Labour Party's almost three years in power did not come near to $100,000.

She said it was `'mischievous'' for the Opposition leader to infer in the debate in the House of Assembly on Thursday that flowers were a `'frivolous and unnecessary'' part of Government.

She said Ms Gordon got her facts wrong when she claimed public money had been spent on flowers for The Laurels, the Premier's private residence.

The only buildings where Cabinet Office money was spent on flowers were the Cabinet Office and Camden, the Premier's public residence which is open to the public and widely used for official engagements.

Ms Gordon's allegations - which she said she got from `'very reliable sources'' - came as MPs approved $61,540 which Cabinet Office overspent in 1999-2000 on parties.

In a press statement issued yesterday, the Premier said: `'During debate on the supplementary, the public was invited, by inference, to believe that spending money on flowers is a frivolous and unnecessary expense for Government.

`'That is a mischievous suggestion. Flower arrangements are very much part of the cost of doing business for governments and for any organisation which owns or manages a public building, particularly one in which weekly visits for tourists are conducted, as is the case with Camden.

`'During 1999-2000, the amount of money spent on flowers in the Cabinet Office was $3,458. The remainder was spent for flowers for display for Camden, a building that is heavily used for official functions and open to the public continuously, or for flowers sent by the Government to individuals as a courtesy (in cases of bereavement or celebration).

`'The amount of money expended on flowers is watched as keenly as any other Government expenditure. The public can be assured that this sum, as well as any other, is kept to the minimum that is consistent with the Government's duty to conduct itself appropriately.''

But last night Ms Gordon stuck by her claims and reiterated that they had come from very well-placed sources.

And she said the onus was on Government to prove that it had not spent $100,000 on flowers.

She said: "I have it on very good authority that that information is correct.

"Considering that they have gone back for five supplementary estimates this year so far, and the availability to via funds and move items that are appropriate from one area to another so the area of accountability is not so obvious is a cause for concern.

"But the real cause for concern is that in the 1999 Budget statement, they said they would go before the House before they reached their limit on a budget and before they overspent. But they did not do that. They have reneged on that commitment.

"There was $26 million overspending for the year 1999 to 2000, which indicates poor planning and their inability to deal with the concept of proper budgeting and living within their means.