Official Report 66KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is consideration of a draft motion for the committee's business in the chamber next week. We are considering not the motion that was originally sent out, but the motion that was put on members' desks today. Does anyone have comments or questions?
Does the revised motion represent the only way in which committees can word motions? Must we ask the Parliament to note the report rather than call on the Executive to act?
The revised motion follows the protocol for committee motions in the chamber.
I presume that in speaking to the motion, committee members can make the points that the report makes.
Members can say anything that they want to. Points can be made without being included in the motion.
I can see the reasoning behind the revised motion, as it frees committee members to take their own point of view, but surely it represents a volte-face from the original motion. Can anyone shed any light on the change? When I was a member of the Health and Community Care Committee, all committee members agreed across party lines with a report when we debated one in the chamber. Where did the idea behind the revised motion come from?
From the beginning, most committees have lodged motions that ask that the Parliament notes a report. That avoids any division—any vote—in the chamber on a consensual committee report. If a word as bland as "notes" is used in the motion, members can say anything they like and the topics that are spoken about in the chamber are unrestricted.
As I said, members can make points in the debate. If the committee is unsatisfied with the Executive's first response or its response in the debate, we will decide how to progress. That is something for the future. For the debate in the chamber, we are following the protocol to which other committees adhere. There are not a tremendous number of options available.
When was the decision taken? The clerk sent us a message that the motion had to be changed to use the word "notes".
That was fully my responsibility, as I did not check the original motion. After I sent out the original motion, it was pointed out to me that it was not what is done. Circulating the original motion was my mistake.
So the practice is not new.
It was my decision to change the motion to follow the way in which committee business is usually presented in the chamber.
Although the motion uses only the word "notes", it asks the Parliament to note our report, which has clear recommendations and presents our decisions and how we feel about the issue. Although the motion is bland, the report that the motion asks the Parliament to note is not bland. We must make that point.
It is largely irrelevant how the motion appears in the business bulletin. The report and its recommendations are the subject of the motion. If we ask the Parliament to note the report, the motion will be unopposed. We can decide how we proceed with Executive responses with which we are unhappy. Committee members are unhappy with quite a few of the Executive's responses and those points can come out in debate. As a committee, we will then decide how to progress.
I apologise to the press and the public for the short public meeting.
Meeting continued in private until 10:22.
Previous
Items in Private