E&I president didn’t consider silencing a different view
EXCLUDING a member of Education, Sport & Culture from meetings using Rule 49 of the States Rules of Procedure has been described as surprising and disappointing by a committee president, who handled dissent in her own committee very differently.
ESC used Rule 49 to exclude Deputy Andy Cameron because he disagreed with its secondary education model, and backed an alternative proposal in the States.
The committee sought advice from HM Comptroller Robert Titterington over the use of the rule, and said it was advised that his differing opinion constituted a ‘special interest’ that meant he must recuse himself from any debate on the subject.
Environment & Infrastructure president Lindsay de Sausmarez said she knew of no precedent for using Rule 49 over a diversion of political views.
‘In my view the rule doesn’t leave much room for interpretation, so I don’t understand how it can be used in this context?
‘I am a big fan of our committee style because it accommodates a wide range of political views, and that is something that shouldn’t be shut down.’
The Guernsey Press approached Deputy de Sausmarez for her opinion on this matter as she had faced a similar quandary of a dissenting committee member over plans for the new quarry at Chouet.
She said that it had not crossed her mind to use Rule 49 during a dispute within E&I that involved the then vice-president Sam Haskins.
‘It was just a legitimate difference of political opinion and we embrace that as part of the democratic process,’ she said.
‘We very consciously gave Deputy Haskins views as equitable hearing as we could as it was a legitimate opinion.’
Deputy de Sausmarez said she had not spoken to any of the members involved in the dispute and did not know if it would be brought up at the next States meeting.
‘I know it is an issue for deputies and has catalysed discussion,’ she said.
‘It has raised a lot of eyebrows and I would not be surprised if it comes up.’
