If the budget is not amended, it holds no meaning to discuss about it in the parliament, according to lawmakers.
The lawmakers have expressed their dissatisfaction with the idea of discussing the budget for the fiscal year 2023-24 in the parliament if it is not amended.
As they said, the government has failed to consider and own up issues raised in the House regarding the budget and deliberations on it are just for formalities.
Taking part in discussions on budget headings concerning the Office of the Vice President under the Appropriation Bill-1080 BS today, Ramesh Lekhak said, "Other bills have parliamentary provisions about amendment. But in the case of Appropriation Bill, the provisions are different. We understand them as proposals to cut the expenditures. Such terminologies have prevented us to think about the probability of the budget amendment."
As he said, questions are being raised within and outside the about the relevancy the deliberations on the budget if lawmakers' concerns are not addressed.
Devendra Paudel was the opinion of addressing issues raised in the House about the budget in the future policies, programmes and the budget.
"To date, the practice is that deliberations are taking place just for making someone to hear, but not for the documentations of the feedback and it should be corrected," he said underlining the need of a national consensus to improve the nation's economy,
Manish Jha was of the opinion of the rewriting the budget endorsement procedures while Raghuji Panta raised the question about the viability of sources management in the fiscal year.
Panta pressed an idea of annulling the provision of appointing advisors to the President and recognizing the Vice President as an ex-officio member in the National Assembly to reduce the budget expenditures. ---
READ ALSO:
1672397318_80X80.jpg)
1672397318_680.jpg)
