Why 'no confidence' was the best option

In fact, a reading of the rules shows that the restraints are identical. Had a motion been placed as a vote of censure, the requete would have had to lay out the grounds in exactly the same way and the debate would have been limited to those issues. If the vote of censure had succeeded, there would almost certainly have been a call for the board to resign and the States might then have had to have a second debate.

Mr Roffey says I was a member of the board before and it was not problem-free then. I agree. As a new member of the Assembly and a new member of the board, we were firmly told that it was not our job to look at management issues, merely to decide policy. With the experience I now have, I believe that advice was flawed and too restrictive and perhaps partially explains our ineffectiveness.

Mr Roffey says that Bowel Cancer Awareness believes the service is on track. I must say that I was amazed to read their public statement.

A week before, I had asked the chairwoman, Anne Brouard, why they were not supporting my efforts to get bowel cancer screening extended. She told me they were a fundraising organisation and did not get involved in politics.

Within a week of that comment, she announces that they do not do screening in the UK and that here in Guernsey, we are doing as much as we can within the limits of staff and budgets available.

In fact, screening is widely carried out in the UK, although not using the same method we do in Guernsey. At the present time, screening is carried out in England every two years from the age of 60 to 69 and the programme is being extended to cover the age range 55-75. Flexible sigmoidoscope is not used because there are insufficient staff to perform the procedure.

Here in Guernsey, we have both the staff and the money. The clinical staff themselves asked for permission to screen 65-year-olds as well as 60-year-olds. Clearly, they would not have asked for permission to do this if they could not do it. They were refused not on the grounds of a lack of resources but because they did not have the money – and we now know that there was adequate money.

Finally, I am surprised that Bowel Cancer Awareness wants to draw a line under the debate. It is important to make people aware of bowel cancer and the changes in lifestyle that can help reduce the number of cases. The more the issue is in the public eye, the greater the public awareness. It is also important that people know that £250,000 of their money, earmarked to this cancer, has been used to achieve savings elsewhere.

I am surprised Mr Roffey cannot see the value in bringing the requete when it had no chance of success. As Deputy Hunter Adam said in his speech, a vote of no confidence is the only way of getting the debate. (Given that a vote of censure could be even more time-consuming.)

The minister, Deputy Mark Dorey, has tried to belittle the issues by suggesting that all he has done is to accidentally mislead the Assembly. That is not all he has done.

He promised to examine the policies regarding the retention and recruitment of nurses and has failed to do this.

He has kept the surgical ward closed to save money when in fact it must have lost an extra £30,000 or so a month.

To close a ward to save money and cause hundreds of islanders to have operations postponed or cancelled would have been bad enough. However, to close the ward when, far from saving money, it increased costs is sheer madness.

Lastly, Deputy Dorey promised openness and a willingness to listen. Instead, the level of secrecy has increased.

I wonder how many of my colleagues will have the nerve to talk about openness, transparency and accountability at the next general election.

DEPUTY MIKE HADLEY,

La Rocque,

La Bouvee,

St Martin's,

GY4 6BQ.