 Rwy'r gweithio dechrau i gyd yn y gweithio'r gweithio, ac y gweithio cyfnodd cyffredig yn 2023. Edward Mountain wedi eu bod nhw'n gweithio'r cyd-feyddau, ac rwy'n gweithio Stephen Kerr ar fy gweithio'r gweithio'r ffaith ym Mwneud. Y gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio ym Mwneud erbyn y gweithio ar gweithio'r gweithio. Fe ydych i'w cyffredinol o'r cyfnod mewn ddechrau ddweud o'r cyfnod i'r cyfnod i'r cyffredinol, a'r cyfnod i'w cyffredinol o'r cyfnod i'w cyffredinol i'r cyffredinol i'w cyffredinol. Yn gyfnod i'i ddweud o'i drafod i'r wybod, yn cyfnod i'r cyffredinol, yn cyffredinol i'w gweld, bob, mae'n cael ei gŵith? Mae gwaethaf yn iawn ei ddweud, ac efallas rydw i'r brefethaf pwys thosehwns yn rhoi gwleisio i wneud cyngwytofau cael ei gwaes erbyn i'r ddiwethaf ddodol yn lleol wedi niwg, ac mae'n That said, Mr David, it does make a reasonable point. Of course it's the unintended consequences of restricting the rights of MSPs to lodged motions of recognition for excellent work, whether by volunteers, charities or organisations in their constituency. I wouldn't want to see changes to the procedures and protocol for lodging motions that will restrict those opportunities. We had the discussion last time, ydw i'n f overlapping a motion of recognition for a very local good cause before parliament and that will have an equal wait for a motion that is urging the Scottish Government or the UK Government to do something quite significant in tackling the cost of living crisis or tackling a matter of great public interest that there may be an issue about whether there's a kind of parity and approach taken in the Parliament to each of those motions, but I'm not sure we want to get out of a two tiered motion system. That would take a bit more thought, but we could potentially in the future categorise motions and give them their own pathway in how they are publicised and promoted and recognised by Parliament, but I don't think we're there yet. I'd be interested to see how the rest of this session pans out and is open to your views, convener, on how we best take this forward in the future. That's very helpful. Thank you. I know that Stephen wants to come in, so Stephen, can I pass over to you? I have a lot of sympathy for what Graham Day is getting at, but I agree completely with Bob Dorr. If I go further than Bob, I think that it would be not in order for us to prescribe what members consider to be an appropriate motion to put before this Parliament. I think that it's already been suggested in private conversations that those motions may not look much in the minds of those who read them, who are sitting in this Parliament, but for the people that are the focus of them and for what it means to them, it means a great deal. I think that we should leave things be—by all means monitor it, but leave things be and let members get on. Members of the public can make up their own mind about the quality of the motions and whether they think they're—whether they're going too far or not, but individual members must make that self-governing choice for themselves. I sympathise with what Graham Day's letter is about, but in instances in which people are living quite remote and rudely from this place, a motion is really beneficial. People feel that they're heard, they feel as if their work is valued, whether it's charity, whether it's local action that's taken forward. We all have motions related to our cross-party group work as well. Today I have a motion about World Asthma Day, and there will be a debate in chamber about that motion. I know not all motions are for debate, some are just in recognition or in congratulations, so I would be keen to monitor it and see how we get on, but I wouldn't like to prescribe to colleagues whether they should be writing motions in a particular way or not. That's very helpful. Alexander, is there anything you'd like to— Yes, convener. I think that the analysis is very useful to have to show where we are and how we have progressed through the various sessions and where we find ourselves at this point. I think that, as other members have indicated, there is a balance to be struck, I think, about motions itself, and this has been discussed in the past. However, as others have said today, it's very important that we, as members, have the right to have a recognition of individuals' organisations within our regions or in our constituencies, because it is a very valid part of our role to ensure that those individuals and some heroes are given a chance. At the same time, other motions are largely supportive of other things that happen within, and there are categories within motions that are the best way to describe it. We all receive them, and it may be our staff who might help to make them happen, but at the same time, it's our constituents who receive and get the recognition. Emma Cymru's point about trying to monitor might be the best way to try to manage it to see if there is a surge or if there is. We have to acknowledge the work that the chamber desk has to do to manage the number of motions that are submitted on a daily basis or a weekly basis. The analysis there is also quite useful to see that they have had some changes, so that's maybe helped them in dealing with the diluge of motions that come on a regular basis. I'm content that we continue, but I'm also content that we monitor for the future, because I think that that would be useful. I think that that's very helpful. Emma, do you want to come back in? Yes, please. I was just thinking—Alexander mentioned the chamber desk, and I know that the chamber desk is a small team, so is it really overly burdensome for them to manage motions? Yes, there are a lot of motions, and I know that some people would have certain things to say about motions that they might not find as valuable, but we've covered that already. However, I would be interested to find out how the chamber desk feels about it. Are they burdened by so many motions? It's helpful. Stephen, on the back of that comment from Emma, I'm going back to my principle, which is that members need to be free to submit the motions that they feel are appropriate. If there is a problem with the chamber desk, and I'm not sure there is, we'd have to rectify that from the corporate body bureau angle, because again, I think that members need to be free to do what they feel is right in respect of the interests of their constituents. I think that we've made the case for the fact that those motions, however or other people might judge them, are very valuable for communities, organisations and individuals, and to somehow have that censored or restricted or cancelled would be wholly inappropriate. Bob, and I would like to come back in. Thank you, convener. Just very briefly, I concur with Mr Kerr. I don't think that's the intent, but I do concur with the views of Mr Kerr. It's when Emma Harper mentioned the chamber desk. Now, the individuals that work in the chamber desk are not just employees of the Parliament, they've built up years of expertise, and they will have seen patterns themselves in relation to the content and nature of motions. I would very much appreciate their views as individual professionals in how they think matters have changed over the years, and I take on the point that Stephen has made without any intent to restrict. They may have views as individual professionals about how motions can be categorised differently in innovative suggestions. I'm not saying that they should be in the public layer because they're employees, but if we can capture some of their views and expertise, it should return to us in the future. Convener, I think that that would be quite helpful. Of course, we're called, we're parliamentary colleagues, because this is for the elected representatives to decide, but I'm just conscious that we've got significant expertise in the Parliament who will have seen fads and motions come and go, quite frankly, convener, and they will be very close to how this has played out over many years. If we do return to it, I'd be quite keen to draw on the experience of those who work for us diligently within the chamber desk. That's very helpful. I thank the committee for all of their views and opinions on it. For a start, we need to understand that the motion is the vehicle that is used to bring anything to the attention of the chamber. I think that we are in agreement that there is a responsibility on individual members of that chamber. The standing orders relating to motions are very clear. It sets out how a motion is to be admissible, rather than the content or expectation or, perhaps, may I say, hope of some motions that come before the chamber. To pick up a discussion that a number of members have reflected, the importance to our constituents of the recognition that this chamber notes their work, be it in a congratulatory way or other matters, and I am at your comments about the cross-party groups, I think, is very important. I also think to go back to the analysis from SPICE. We are not so far out of the expectation that it is perhaps in actuality the concern that perhaps some members have felt. I hope that members will be reassured that if we continue to monitor the situation that we will undertake to do over the next 12 months to see whether or not we move away from the expectation, which might be the trigger for us to return. With regard to the chamber desk, obviously the clerks there serve the chamber and the expertise lies there. I note your suggestion, Bob, and certainly if we were to consider an inquiry into this matter, we would, of course, seek evidence from all relevant and experienced bodies to feed in to our view. At the moment, if the committee is content, I would write to Graeme Dey. I thank him for expressing a concern that is not just his but has been raised by other members, but that we will, and I do not mean this to disparage the idea, take a watching brief to see if this session continues the way that previous sessions have, and we will continue to monitor the effect and use of the motion system. Are we content to do that? I say I'm grateful. That being the last of the matters that we intend to deal with in public, I will move the committee now into private session.