HSSD lose bid to cut savings
Wednesday 14th December 2011, 3:55PM GMT.
HEALTH and Social Services will have to find £2.35m. of savings next year after it lost its argument against doing so this afternoon.
The department has signalled the move will mean new services agreed earlier this year such as an adult respite service will be delayed.
The Budget includes savings as part of the States-wide efficiency drive known as the financial transformation programme.
HSSD was unhappy with the timing of being asked to make these savings — it was put on notice in October having already agreed a budget with Treasury in September.
Its minister, Deputy Hunter Adam, pictured, argued it had already made ‘massive’ savings in the past three years.
But members voted in favour of financial discipline.
The amendment, which would have meant making £1m. of savings instead, was lost by 29 votes to 18.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Saturday 26 May
- Laid-off staff see jobs re-advertised next day
- The Week - Roots Manuva interview
- Royal celebrations of yesteryear
- The Week - Jubilee Food
- Sport - Angus Mackay takes Gib job
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Sell the MRI and shut down bowel screening?
Report abuse
We’ll need every spare penny to spend on the airport, best we cut back on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
Report abuse
Make it a Health department, send all the hand wringing, do nothing, do gooders who havent a clue down the road, job done!
Report abuse
80 million spent on the airport to extend the safety areas may result in saving the lives of a plane load of passengers and crew (max 80 people) once in a generation or hopefully never. Cost = £1 million per person.
Equate that to how many lives you could save or improve by spnding that much on health services over a generation.
Report abuse
@Kune
We spend more than that on healthcare in a year (where have you been?), and the £80m for the airport is to perform essential maintenance with a view to keeping the airport operational. As I understand it, inthe overall scheme the safety areas are small fry. Some people probably want you to think otherwise.
Dave
Report abuse
Sorry Dave you didn’t understand my point…
Yes I realise that they are doing more than extending run off areas at the airport, but you will agree that buying a meadow and spending two years filling it up by the lorry load will represent a significant chunk of the £80m budget. (Bearing in mind how much the overspend is likley to be). This extra run off is deemed necessary despite the instances of aircraft overshooting far far have been withing the current areas. Take into account advances in aircraft technology, changes in avaition markets (big planes small planes, shorter take off and landing capabilities etc) and examples of other airports in areas of land limitation (London City) and you wonder if this was really necessary or are we just bending over to external pressure rather than challenging it.
I also realise that £80m does not represent even a years worth of healthcare budget. I was referring to the accumulated cuts that the service has to make which will reduce the quality and extent of health care. If you take the cost of the safety areas as, lets say £50m and divide it by the annual cutbacks indicated in the article you will see that it equates to over 20 years with of health care savings.
Balancing the risk, what do you think will save more lives.
Report abuse