Parliament approved the Appropriation Bill (budget) for 2013 last night by a two thirds majority and set aside a Supreme Court determination that sought to reinforce full parliamentary control over public finances. It was passed by a majority of 101 with 158 government MPs voting in favour and 57 against. In a determination delivered to [...]

News

Budget passed but Parliament’s control over finances undermined

View(s):

Parliament approved the Appropriation Bill (budget) for 2013 last night by a two thirds majority and set aside a Supreme Court determination that sought to reinforce full parliamentary control over public finances.

It was passed by a majority of 101 with 158 government MPs voting in favour and 57 against.
In a determination delivered to the Speaker on the constitutionality of the Bill, the Supreme Court had expressed reservations over allowing the Minister of Finance to withdraw funds allocated for specific purposes and/or from the Consolidated Fund. It said this “presents a direct challenge to the onus of Parliament to have full control over public finances.”

In terms of the new amendment, provision has been made for a report to be presented to Parliament after a loan is obtained. A fuller account of the finances disbursed from the Budgetary Contingency Fund of the Treasury will be included in the quarterly report submitted to Parliament under the provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act.Deputy Finance Minister Sarath Amunugama told the House that the Attorney General has reported that the amendments are in order and that the Bill could be approved by a special majority. “We have to go with the views of the Attorney General. He has sent his opinion in writing to the Speaker,” he said.

House Leader Nimal Siripala de Silva called for separate votes for two amendments in effect ensuring a two thirds majority.

Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe took strong objection to the move. He said it was not the Attorney General but the Supreme Court that could interpret the Constitution. “We have to be governed by what the court says,” he added.

Anura Kumara Dissanayake, DNA parliamentarian, said the Attorney General’s Department had scrutinised the Bill before the Supreme Court gave its determination.




Share This Post

DeliciousDiggGoogleStumbleuponRedditTechnoratiYahooBloggerMyspace
comments powered by Disqus

Advertising Rates

Please contact the advertising office on 011 - 2479521 for the advertising rates.