Negation of motion

Question

One of my parish council colleagues submitted a motion calling for the council to unreservedly condemn all forms of CSE and to write to the Prime Minister and Home Secretary asking them to commission a national inquiry into CSE. I seconded it.

The chair had prepared an amendment which they passed round immediately with no time to debate the original motion. The amendment removed the bit about requesting an inquiry and replaced it with a long speech praising the local authority and attacking the previous government.

I raised a point of order as I felt the amendment negated the substantive part of the original motion. The clerk asked for the motion to be deferred so they could seek legal advice as they weren't sure the amendment was legal. The motion was not withdrawn, the amendment stood and was voted through.

Aside from being morally reprehensible, would you agree that it negates the original motion and would therefore be unlawful? The clerk has subsequently sought advice from NALC after being requested to do so and the response shared (without the question asked) is merely about the procedure of amendments which suggests that NALC didn't have sight of the motion and amendment and weren't asked the right question. Which is what I'd expect from this clerk.

Answer 1

Sorry, showing my ignorance here but "CSE"?

Comments

Child Sexual Exploitation. It's a major problem here.

---

Join the club. I had to Google it!

Answer 2

Sorry but from what you have said, the Clerk requested that the motion be deferred so they could check on legalities but the Councillor who raised the amendment and those who raised the original motion should be the ones to withdraw it, not the Clerk.  The Council then decided not to agree to this request and carried on with the debate on the amendment.

NALC will only advise you on the correct procedure for debate and not the content of the debate, hence the response.

Sounds like you are blaming the wrong person for the result of this debate.

Comments

The clerk said they needed to seek legal advice on whether the amendment negated the original motion. If NALC don't provide that then the clerk hasn't got the legal advice they said they needed and refusing to discuss it further on the basis of advice sought on something that wasn't in question is wrong. The correct procedure (other than not allowing time to debate the original motion) was followed for an amendment, the question is whether the amendment negated the original motion.

---

The councillors should decide motions and amendments, by majority decision, not the TC. They are also responsible for deciding whether or not to accept or decline advice. So, if I have interpreted what happened correctly; a motion was proposed, an amendment was raised, the TC suggested gaining legal advice which was not accepted and then the majority carried the amendment.
I accept the point of the possibility of the negation of the original proposal, but trying to use a vague point of order without majority support will get you nowhere. Incidentally what was so contentious that a legal opinion was thought necessary?

Answer 3

Spoiler alert. I'm not going to answer your key question, as I believe that the wording of the relevant standing order is sufficiently ambiguous to render the question unanswerable.

I don't wish to cause offence, but it appears to me that the effect of the amendment is to transform a meaningless letter/email into a meaningless letter/email. To what extent do your colleagues believe that a letter/email from Random Parish Council will influence the Government's thinking on the establishment of a national inquiry? Is CSE the only form of criminal activity your Council condemns, or is this just one example from many similar public proclamations?

My biggest concern is that your Clerk asked for a deferment to seek legal advice and the Chair and a majority of members denied this request. You mention that the Clerk subsequently sought legal advice "after being requested to do so" but was this a resolution of the Council? Did the Council pass the motion whilst questioning its legality?

Finally, whose responsibility is it to act upon the motion and convey the Council's views to the Government?

Comments

No offence taken, context is important. One letter won't make a difference but it adds to the pressure from MPs, campaigners and media who are doing the same. It's a very important local issue, it's a significant problem here. I can't say any more without giving away too much information that would compromise anonymity but "significant" is not an overstatement. It's probably pertinent to point out that this isn't a sleepy village parish council, it's an 8k+ household, £300k a year urban parish council.

The clerk was asked by the councillor who proposed the motion after the meeting to seek advice on the legality of what had happened. The council passed the amended motion whilst the clerk questioned the legality.

The motion was to instruct the Chair to write to the PM and Home Secretary.