Speech I made in the States to amend MTFP. It passed.
Sir, a bit of light relief compared to the quite heavy amendments we’ve had to contend with today. This is the second amendment intended to give some clarity around expectations both to the Committee for Health and Social Care and the States as a whole, which I understand is supported by P&R. In the last couple of years there have been a number of different figures bandied around in relation to the savings expected from HSC. These include £8.2m, £7.4m, £5.2m and even £24m per annum as Deputy Roffey mentioned yesterday.
In 2016, the States agreed to increase HSSDs budget in line with the recommendations of BDO arising from their Costing, Benchmarking and Prioritisation report. At the same time in the 2016 budget first mention was made of the figure of £8.2m temporary funding. This was news to everyone at HSSD but we later understood this represented the estimated cash limit that appeared in the 2015 budget which was calculated in 2014 of £110.35m. With the budget of £118.5, this gave approximately £8.2m. However, as for every other Department at the time, this took no account of inflation or pay awards. Neither did it, in the case of HSSD, include the extra approximate £3m granted by the States to HSSD as a result of the investment required in maternity services following the NMC review, as well as for children’s services and recruitment and retention.
In their report BDO said that they had identified specific HSSD annual savings of £7.4m deliverable over a 3 to 5 year period. At the same time, they said that there was the potential for up to £24m non-risk adjusted savings over 7-10 years, including expenditure that came from the then SSD. Now, whether £24m is any way achievable is what will be addressed by the strategic transformation work currently being undertaken with KPMG. It is evident from that work that we have the potential for a more efficient, effective and equitable model, but that has to be balanced with the growing demands of an ageing demographic, medical inflation and public expectations. Something BDO themselves said.
Going back to the 3-5 year programme, BDO said that to achieve the £7.4m would require £3.3m one-off costs and recurrent costs of £2.2m. In other words, under the current model of care, HSC can expect to make annual recurring savings of £5.2m.
The purpose of amendment 19 is to ensure that it is this reality that is understood by changing the wording within the MTFP to the actual wording used by BDO.
Now this amendment really is only about changing some of the wording within the MTFP. It does not mean that CHSC is not trying to make savings or avoiding unnecessary costs. As the amendment passed yesterday shows, we are committed to doing so, but the MTFP is a public document and the Committee believes it is important that it reflects reality.