SACC president says ‘controversial’ Rule 49 is to be reviewed to make it more specific
RULE 49 of the States Rules of Procedure is set to be reviewed.
The ‘special interest’ rule has been used to exclude Education, Sport & Culture Committee member Andy Cameron from discussions about secondary and post-16 education plans.
Deputy Carl Meerveld, president of the States Assembly & Constitution Committee, described the rule as ‘controversial’ and said it had already been highlighted as an issue.
‘Rule 49 is controversial. We are hoping to address in a policy letter later this year. “Special interest” is not defined in law, and in its strictest interpretation, could be defined as any interest,’ he said.
Deputy Meerveld said that he believed that the original intent of the rule was to exclude individuals who might have a financial interest in an item which could bring them into conflict.
‘I would anticipate we would look to make the rules more specific,’ he said.
‘SACC is likely to clarify that it should be financial or a clear conflict of interest.’
On the exclusion of Deputy Cameron, Deputy Meerveld said he had seen Rule 49 applied often and quite legitimately, and he had in fact used the rule in SACC as recently as last week.
‘But I’ve never seen it used in this context before, and in such a strict way,' he said.
Deputy Meerveld said that he had personally been removed from a committee’s debate on an issue through the use of rule 49 in the past.
This was in 2017 when he and Deputy Andrea Dudley-Owen, the current president of ESC, were not allowed to participate in discussions regarding the private colleges because they had, or in the future would probably have, children attending the colleges as fee-payers.
Speaking at the time on the use of the rule, Deputy Dudley Owen said: ‘I think the rule is too vague and so generalised that it can be interpreted to fit any interest you could have in a community as small as Guernsey.’
