Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1524104,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1524104/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 41,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kikuyu, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Kimani Ichung’wah",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " I wish to draw her attention to this because it is important for her to understand the basis of the letter we received from the National Treasury. It addresses a correction of an error in the BPS submitted to us. The Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning discovered an error between the fiscal framework and the expenditure framework under the Ministry of Health. The difference amounted to approximately Ksh73 billion. According to the fiscal framework, the total was Ksh4.263 trillion, while the projected expenditure outlined on Page 55 of the BPS was Ksh4.336 trillion, highlighting a difference of Ksh73 billion. I can see Hon. Ariko nodding in agreement, because it is out of the diligence of the Members of the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning that the glaring inconsistency in the figures was pointed out. The National Treasury has provided clarification regarding the issue. In their correction, they assert that the inconsistency arises from how the Social Health Insurance Fund was classified in the Budget. Accountants like Hon. Ariko know that according to the International Financial Reporting Standards, specifically the Government Finance Statistics Manual of 2014, social security funds can be categorised in two ways: either as a separate category distinct from other Ministries, Departments, or Agencies (MDAs) expenditures, or as part of the Government Department that oversees them. In this case, it was categorised under the Government department expenditure for the Ministry of Health, specifically the State Department for Medical Services. This classification led to the exclusion of this amount in the cumulative total of the fiscal framework. This has since been corrected to align with the international financial reporting standards, particularly the Government Finance Statistics Manual of 2014, and the figures now agree. Therefore, let me take this opportunity to thank the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning. Had it not identified this error, we might have encountered people pointing to it as a \"computer error,\" and suggesting in funerals that the BPS represented theft or looting. Now it is clear. The two figures align thus reflecting a consistent understanding between the entire expenditure framework and the fiscal framework currently under consideration by the departmental committees and the Liaison Committee. This letter has also been tabled before the Liaison Committee for noting and before the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning. I must commend the diligence of the Members of the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning. Many times, we are accused of merely rubber-stamping The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}