Health minister 'led bid to oust previous board'

UNDER-FIRE Health minister Mark Dorey instigated the moves which ultimately led to him replacing Deputy Hunter Adam at HSSD, it has emerged.

UNDER-FIRE Health minister Mark Dorey instigated the moves which ultimately led to him replacing Deputy Hunter Adam at HSSD, it has emerged.

Deputy Dorey, pictured, suggested a vote of no confidence in the previous political board and helped to draft the requete which led to the members resigning a year ago.

It was not known at that time that Deputy Dorey intended putting his name forward as minister and he was elected in place of the Policy Council’s preferred candidate, head of Housing Dave Jones. However, while Deputy Dorey suggested the no confidence vote, he wanted Mike Hadley to lead it rather than himself.

Deputy Hadley is now leading a vote of no confidence against Deputy Dorey over what he says is the minister’s mishandling of the bowel cancer screening programme and the issue of how the budget has been spent.

Deputy Hadley is also accusing Deputy Dorey of being misleading about his motives for attacking the previous Health board. At the time, Deputy Dorey said Deputy Adam was wrong to close wards to save money but a written answer to questions has shown that the current board continued to keep beds closed to save money.

However, Deputy Dorey last night rejected Deputy Hadley’s claims.

‘There is simply no truth in the suggestion that I have not kept my election promises, or that wards were kept closed for financial gain; and there is no reasonable justification for a motion of no confidence in the department.’

Comments for: "Health minister 'led bid to oust previous board'"


Ah, so this is where Deputy Hadley's personal vendetta against the HSSD board has come from! Surely there should be a rule in place to say that if you lead a vote of no confidence in a minister and their board, you can't be nominated to then take the position yourself... otherwise it will just be a culture of backstabbing for personal gain


It is clear that there is a degree of revenge motivating this and not what is the most benefit to our Health Service.

Stop this petty fighting and sort out the real problems at HSSD.


Fully agree, it would seem that the previous board of which Mike Hadley was member are also at fault for this latest development at HSSD, so why should he take the helm now.

I believe that we require some period of stability at the helm, and HSSD will sort the problems, but change at the top every 12 months does no good to anyone.

Come on stop the infighting and get down to the real work, and sort the problems out, yes be open with what is going on, and this has been Dorey's downfall he has been open and now they want his head.

Next year we will be wanting Hadleys head for some mess that he may not even been be responsible for just like on this occasion.

Lets see how it pans out, but don't keep changing the top man, or it will never get sorted.


He shouldn't resign because of this, but he must resign because he is simply incompetent, and ineffective.


After listening to him on the radio this morning, it is hard to disagree. Full of waffle and no substance.

Top Banana

All this in-fighting just goes to prove that most politicians are in it just for the power and influence that their status as a deputy gives them. Very few are there because they want to make things better for the rest of us underlings. They like to see themselves as a superior being. It seems that there is competition to see who has the biggest political todger!


Ah! Well said Top Banana, Your last sentence would of course explain why there are no women on Policy Council......

Election Issues

All infighting aside..Deputy Hadley has wanted to get to the truth of what is going on in HSSD.

Whether Deputy Dorey instigated moves to replace Deputy Hunter Adam at HSSD or not..the facts remain.

Deputy Dorey has admitted misinforming the States about the bowel cancer screening programme budget underspend.

1.Where has this money gone to?

2.Why was this allocated money not used to screen more islanders?

Apparently Deputy Dorey also said that the the Medical Specialists supported reducing the screening programme when they did no such thing.

This bowel cancer screening programme budget was agreed... as this service not only saves lives but it also saves the States money in estimated future care costs as any signs of bowel cancer are discovered earlier.

Why did Deputy James resign?

This is too serious for any kind of cover up, either by a complete lack of information or by actual deception. It is now high time that we all find out the an open and transparent way.

Guernsey Fudge

What goes around................


Dorey is useless and must go. Clueless & Hopeless!

Hiding the facts about the Bowl Screening Program is not on. Why tell lies? Well done Deputy Hadley for forcing this out into the open. What else is hidden?

What Dorey do at his previous post at Social Security? Got rid of the Widows Pension.

Time he went out of Politics!

The Fact of the Matter

Widow's pensions were "got rid of" in 2003 - it was nothing to do with Deputy Dorey when he was Social Security Minister.

Deputy Paint tried to bring them back in 2011 - he did not succeed and lost by 29 votes to 17. These facts are easily found by doing a simple internet search.

I remember Deputy Paint promised at the hustings in 2012 to try again about Widow's Pensions - he seems to have been strangely silent on this matter since being re-elected though.

Election Issues

Removal of Widows Pensions...that was another shocker....all because there was a need for change to gender equality which had been made more urgent by the introduction of the Human Rights Law as part of Guernsey's domestic legislation.

Article 14 ECHR concerning non discrimination was seen as the driver for change.

The Widow's benefits represented a whole class of benefit that was available to married women only.


Mr Dorey either genuinely did not know what was going on within his own ministry or told us blatant lies. Both of these are reasons to go! We'll done Mr Hadley for bring this to the attention of taxpayers. Who said the Buck stops here?

B Paint

Fact of the matter, I have tried twice last year(2013), First time by emailing all Deputies asking if I would get support from them to re-debate the widows pension issues, the responce was very small in support.

A few deputies who responed mainly north were completely against it and said so.

I tried again in September 13 by going to SSD and T&R to bring an amendment to the budget, it fail again because of cost and by not being able to say where the money was going to come from to pay for it.

I have not brought this to the media simply because I do not want the build an expectation that the widows pension could be returned where it it is likely to fail again.

I sincerely believe that the Law change on January 1st 2004 was a very bad mistake in judgement by the Government at the time but as usual once something has been passed by the state it is very hard to change it back again.

I cannot for the life of me, see, how most of the present Deputies as well as the 2008/12 members can't see that all widows should be the only ones to loose out from the 2004 change of Law where the rest of sociaty gained from it. I just thing it was a money grab by the state at the time.

This was not gender equalily as it was and is claimed to be but a travesty of what should have been widows rights and against anyone in long term marriages or is this the real reason behind the 2004 change of Law?

I do not usually respond on these boards simply because I do not like speaking to faceless and nameless people but on this occasion I thought I'd better set the record straight.

Barry Paint