HSSD board resign - Deputy Dorey elected new minister

Deputy Mark Dorey is the new Health and Social Services minister.

Deputy Mark Dorey is the new Health and Social Services minister.

He was elected after all five members of the department offered their resignations to the Bailiff before a proposed vote of no confidence could be discussed by the States this morning.

Deputy Dorey, pictured, faced Deputy Dave Jones in the vote. Deputy Dorey was nominated Deputy Matt Fallaize, seconded by Deputy Tony Spruce.

Deputy Jones was nominated by chief minister Peter Harwood and seconded by deputy chief minister Jonathan Le Tocq.

After both candidates gave short speeches members went to the vote in which Deputy Dorey polled 27 votes to Deputy Jones' 16.

Deputy Dorey will return to the House at 3.30pm to nominate members for his board.

Comments for: "HSSD board resign - Deputy Dorey elected new minister"


So, just how do the electorate go about a vote of no confidence in the states of guernsey.


Congratulations Deputy Dorey

I feel more at home having you being a local man at the helm


What a stupid statement. I regard Hunter Adam as no less 'local' than Mark Dorey.

Real Guern

That's your opinion but as he is Scottish then he is not a true local. And in my opinion had absolutely no right to stand as a Guernsey politician.


So you would prefer Barry Paint X 45?


I see from another article you've moved on from knocking the Scots and have started on the Welsh. You're not distantly related to King Edward I are you?

Might I suggest if you think it should only be "true locals" in the States you stand next election? Of course you'll have to convince the rest of the island that you can do a better job....

Dave Jones

Real Guern

I am not locally born either, I came to your shores 42 and a bit years ago after a childhood of misery and violence, I was scared and an emotional wreck and the people of Guernsey took me in and gave me my life back.

I will always be eternally gratful for the warmth and friendship I was shown at that time, given that I was alone with no family or anyone I could turn to.

After 30 years I decided that I knew enough about the island, it's history, it's constitution, people and way of life to represent the people of the Vale if they wanted me to.

I am gratful for everything this island and its people have given me, I love this island deeply and I have been married to a local girl for 36 years, it is a priverlige to live here and I know that and I would never do anything that I thought was not in the best interests of those I represent.

Hunter Adam has given his life to medicine and the health and welfare of the people of Guernsey, surely we owe him some recognition of that service and wherever he came from he has given this island much more than he has ever taken from it.

Give the man a break and remember his service to all of you.


What difference does being local have on someone's ability to do a job?


In my opinion Deputy Dave Jones was the man for this tough job.


Trouble is if Dave Jones had moved over,Mark Dorey might well have got Housing,and isn't he a major island private landlord?

Let's not disturb Dave Jones while he is on the cusp of thinking about the advantages of building upwards


Whow! All I can do is wish all happiness

Maybe the next step will be to check the CEO & Finance Officer for their fails


I don't always agree with D.Jones, but I like him and he has come out of this well. Surprised the vote was not closer, though.


I think a lot of people wanted to keep him in housing where he does the most good.

Neil Forman



I think they were particularly concerned that Mike Hadley might have got Housing. With good reason.



Your regard for Hunter Adam as 'just as local as Mark Dorey' is plain daft. Adam and wife arrived on Guernsey in 1977ish, as a then GP (?), he and his nice, but very quiet, wife were adopted immediately into the social scene, dinner party round; he was frequently wont to say, that he felt he was over qualified to be here. That comment was not taken lightly, by hosts and fellow guests, who would in our Guernsey tradition, make people welcome, feel at home; he has done very well for himself, despite his misgivings, but, he is not a man of the people.

Mark Dorey is a quiet, well respected man, with a genuine respect for our community and I wish him well.


Just to clarify Stiletto, I'm not having a go at Mark Dorey here and I think Mark is a the breath of fresh air that this department needs but I do regard Hunter for all his faults as fully assimilated within this community and just as 'local' as Mark Dorey in that sense. Don't you think it's silly to brand someone as local or not in terms of whether or not they were born here? Where do you draw the line?

Supreme Dalek

As Dave Jones was proposed by Harwood and Le Tocq is it safe to presume he was the favoured choice of the Policy Council? If so who did they have in mind to replace Dave at housing?


Having spoken to a few current and ex HSSD staff, I think the general feeling amongst those at the coal face is that the jury is out; Mark Dorey is seen as a fairly sober, uninspiring individual, Hunter Adam was also uninspiring.


What we need at the helm, is someone with a broad background of all walks of life in this Island, and prepared to accept any criticism,with honesty and humility.I don't think that either of these two men ( Dorey or H Adam) fit into this bracket. Allthough I think Dave Jones does.Only time will tell.

By the way I believe that only those who have lived here continuously for more tha 18 years shoul be allowed to stand for election,after all,those who were born here, have to wait that long.


One solution to the newcomers problem in Guernsey would be to adopt a suitably modified version of the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Within just a few years we would have a completely purified island.


Just to clarify Martino, I don't think for one moment being born here has anything to do with being considered local, regardless of what the 'local' diedhards in our community may think; what is more important by far is what individuals bring into a community. Hunter Adam has in my view demonstrated a certain superiority and arrogance throughout his time as a medic and, as a politician.


I think Hunter Adam did make one rather good point during the wrangling - he overspent his budget providing services the island whereas the idiots who literally lost £2.6M through shear stupidity and negligence got off scot free. Doesn't really seem fair to me.


That's true Beanjar however tit for tat wrangling doesn't solve the islands problems either.

I'm glad to see Dave Jones stay at Housing as we could do with some stability in the various boards now. Sometimes it's difficult to think it's only been 8 months since the election, sometimes it feels like 8 years!

Dave Jones

I think Deputy Dorey will do a good job, my style of leadership doesn't suit everyone and I am happy to serve in whatever position the States wishes me to serve in.

There is no doubt the the HSSD post is a difficult job but I don't agree with Peter Roffey that the States have taken a gamble or that States members were having a go at the "centre". PR does write some rot at times and my recollection of his time in the States was that he talked a good talk but that he couldn't lead a horse.

I spoke to a large number of States members before the vote and it was clear that they were quite happy to keep me at Housing and bring Deputy Dorey up to Health, so the result of the vote came as no surprise to me whatsoever.

As for the crockadile tears jibe, it is true that members of the Policy Council had decided that they could no longer support Deputy Adam in his post but that in no way implies that they did not recognise his contribution to the health care of the people of this island as a surgeon, or for the time he was Health minister and I thought that deserved some recognition befor he left office.

. I doubt the former Deputy Roffey would have got a standing ovation from States members when he left HSSD and subsequently the States, so he mightlearn to be a little more magnanimous before putting pen to paper.

Polotics can be a brutal bussiness and those in the top jobs know that any fall in performance or a political decision taken that was unwise can lead to a swift and very bloody execution on the floor of the assembly, both Deputy Steer and Deputy Adam have found that out.

We get paid the most to do a job and our fellow States members can be very unforgiving when the states as a whole is under the public cosh but then we all knew that when we put our names forward.

We will now move on until the axe falls again. Everything that is wrong with our Health service can be fixed, it will need strong leadership and the tenacity from the board to break down what I believe is a lot of imported problems from NHS practices.

Deputy Sandra James should be given free rein to sort out the nursing issues and they don't come anymore qualified to do so than her. Deputy Martin Storey serves with me on housing and he is very good with balance sheets and following the money, he will I am convinced ask the right questions.

The two former board members will bring continuity to the board which in my view is going to help Mark through the coming months and years.

So all in all if Mark is strong and forthright in his leadership and if he can improve the departments relationship with the Treasury, HSSD will be back on track.


Just about says it all..

and that incudes the horse!

Steve H.

Well there we were again with yet another vote of "No Confidence". If Ministers believe that the electorate will see this a a sign of their commitment and decisiveness as politicians - then think again. In my opinion it amounts to weakness, self-centredeness and pure arrogance.

It appears that States Departments have no concept as to how to pursue their promises of "joined-up" Government. Instead it has the distinct appearance of party politics in that Departmental Ministers act as if they are in "opposition" to other Departmental Ministers!!.

Now, I would have been far more impressed if the instigator of the "no confidence" vote had acknowledged that HSSD had a problem and put his efforts into helping to put forward a solution!!

Matt Fallaize

Apologies in advance: I know from earlier exchanges that a lot of posters on here will not care to hear from me again about issues of structure, process etc.

But Steve H makes a really good point and I couldn’t resist the opportunity to respond.

There are 10 States departments. But sometimes the impression is created that they are less like 10 different sections of the same government and more like 10 separate political parties, sometimes working together and sometimes fiercely in opposition.

That has been the case for as long as I can remember, so it's probably less to do with the individuals involved and more to do with the political culture and structure of the States.

The States of Deliberation - all 47 members - are the government. Departments are nothing more than sub-committees set up by the Assembly of 47 and to which certain powers have been delegated but in very specific areas of policy. Those sub-committees, or departments, are not responsible or in any way bound to each other - they are accountable only to the whole States Assembly. Frequently over the years committees and departments have been at loggerheads and it has been left to the whole States Assembly either to arbitrate or to choose which committee or department's ideas it prefers. The long-term care insurance scheme, the redevelopment of the markets and supplementary benefit reform are three of many such examples.

For a long time - as far as I can tell at least since the 1948 Reform Law - such inter-committee disputes with the States Assembly acting as an overarching decision-making executive were regarded not only as acceptable but as a healthy feature of what we might call the Guernsey version of democracy. Indeed, States departments’ and committees’ (and therefore also their ministers’) relative independence from each other – with each one accountable only to the whole States Assembly – is probably the key feature of our present system of government. It has long been regarded as the only viable way of doing things in a jurisdiction without political parties and where, as a consequence, members are elected independently on completely separate manifestos.

I think that system/culture has some strengths and some weaknesses. My point is not to defend or criticise it but to emphasise that for decades it has been ‘the Guernsey way’.

Recently, though, the sort of things I have just outlined – i.e. ‘the Guernsey way’ of running government – appear to have been ridiculed by more and more people, including the media and some members of the public who take an interest in such things, including many on this forum. It is difficult – perhaps impossible – truly to establish whether lots of people are fed up with Guernsey’s version of democracy or whether a few people are shouting about it very loudly and therefore carrying a disproportionate voice. I’m not referring to decisions of the States – I know disquiet about some of them is widespread and genuine – but about the way government in Guernsey is organised, although of course there is a relationship between the two: a bad structure is more likely to result in bad decisions and a good structure in good decisions.

But I think it must be incumbent on those of us within the States – and especially those working on the current review of government – at least to ask ourselves whether the relatively modern demands for stronger leadership, accountability and more joined-up and united government are beginning to overtake and overwhelm our traditional system of government.


Never mind about all that guff

How is the investigation into island wide voting coming along?


Matt Fallaize

Don't apologise! I'm pleased you post on TIG but you will always get mixed responses. I would like to see comments from you on twitter too as I find that is a great way for the public to witness how deputies interact with each other. We can then judge for ourselves whether strong leadership, accountability and joined up government is working on a day to day basis. My current thinking is that the characters and relationships are more important than the political structure. The civil service is where the structure needs looking at.

Matt Fallaize


Island wide voting: that was the last States term, wasn't it? I think there were three IWV reports put before the States of 2008-12. I remember on one occasion voting for an amendment which envisaged something like a third of the Assembly having an island-wide mandate. But everything was thrown out by a very large majority.

The States Review Committee - which is reviewing "all that guff" as you put it - may re-open the debate about our electoral system, but only as a second stage of its review, once in-principle decisions have been taken about the future structure of the machinery of government. The structure needs to be determined first; the electoral system can be built around that.

Matt Fallaize


I agree with you about the structure and role of the civil service. That will have to be included in the States Review Committee's reports. It was virtually excluded from consideration during the last review of government (circa 2000-2) and it always seemed to me that was a big mistake.


Well,you read it here first folks!

Island wide voting ... the one subject that was raised and treated with fake enthusiasm at every hustings in 2012 is now well and truly off the radar and tucked away behind the back burner

Neil Forman

Matt Fallaize

With regards to your comment on Island Wide Voting, with all due respect the voters were virtually assured that this would be in place for 2016.

Matt Fallaize


If any candidate(s) at the 2012 election was offering voters such an 'assurance', as you put it, they were exaggerating their powers. You and I and all the other candidates stood as independents and not one of us could sensibly guarantee that, if elected, this or that would happen. Changing significant policies in the States depends upon a member persuading at least 23 colleagues of the merits of his or her case.

However, contrary to Ray's post, IWV is not necessarily 'off the radar'. Any one of the 47 members of the States could bring that issue before the Assembly again and if at least 24 elected members want reform then there will be reform. And, as I said earlier, it's possible that the committee set up to review our system of government will suggest ways of effecting electoral reform, too, in the second stage of their review in 2014.

My one hope is that this States does not try to provoke yet another time-consuming review of IWV in the hope that someone will suddenly unearth a form of IWV which has eluded the dozens of people who have looked at the issue many, many times over the past 25 years or more. Those reviews are publicly available and they set out in full the arguments for and against IWV and all its variants. If this States wants to reconsider the issue, all they need do is dust off those many reviews and then consider whether on balance IWV would be an improvement or not.


So Dave how come there was no "swift and very bloody execution on the floor of the assembly" for those in charge of the £2.6m fraud loss?

As was pointed out the overspend at HSSD has at least gone on caring for people ....


Without knowing all the facts of how it happened this banking scam has also caught out a few larger than us UK Councils

The head of the department( the person who should have known the ins and outs of his office work streams)fell on his sword .I wouldn't have thought that the Mekon would have had,or needed have needed to know that sort of detail, although I bet he does now!




You don't need to know the facts. I happened for 1 of 2 reasons:

staff failed to follow the procedures that were in place to prevent such fraud, or:

no such procedures were in place

Yes the HOD fell on their sword but of course the minister should have known the departmental key risks and measures in place to mitigate them. That is surely the basics for leadership.

If you apply your logic to HSSD overspend then HA shouldn't have gone as he shouldn't have needed to know anything about where the money was being spent and the HSSD HOD should have got the sword out instead.

Dave Jones


Because on that occasion no members demanded it.


And there Dave is an exact reason why so many islanders (those that do vote and those that don't waste their time) have lost confidence in the "members".

On one hand they want the swift and very bloody execution of someone who was in charge of overspending whilst caring for people but not for someone who was in charge of paying money to fraudsters.

If you add what is now clear as a lack of drive and desire to bring in IWV you wonder whether anyone will bother to vote next time around let alone someone new feeling like they could make a difference by standing.

I really thought the new house would actually get things done this time around but it has descended into another talking / consultation / review shambles where everyone will wake up in four year's time and realise they have done very little of what they said in their manifestoes they would do if elected.


@ D. Jones

Don't normally agree with your ways and thinking but your comments on citizen Roffey are spot on, well done.


Here we go again.

Mr. Fallaize your apologies are not accepted, you need to sit down and analyze that post that Dave Jones as written, as much as i don't agree with a lot he says i think that he has sussed you and others out.

Don't go looking for the horse Matthew, unfortunateley for you, you will never find it.

Neil Forman


I was relying on IWV to come in.

I might have to move to the Vale now, where most of my family members live;-))


Mr Webber's house might be on the market if it's true that he is moving to Alderney

There was a good Webber letter in the Press yesterday.Not once did he mention " when I was a Conseiller", a phrase which I always look out for and which always tends to obliterate the message he is trying to convey


Out of interest, how much responsibility does the chief officer at HSSD have? Surely he has control over all of the staff working there and therefore has some level of accountability?


So - Now we have Health Minister with NO Medical Qualifications!!! It should be OBLIGATORY for Ministers to be professionally knowledgable with regard to their Departments, or at least competant business people!! Our health system is now in the hands of someone WHO KNOWS NOTHING about MEDECINE!!! THE COBBLER SHOULD STICK TO HIS LAST!!!


So, the Environment minister would have to be a planning officer, transport coordinator AND Environmental health officer.

Thank God we have so many politicians in the States with those qualifications ....