Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have got the statute and the guidance.

It is culture that we are talking about, is it not? Or is it resources?

It is just to seek clarification on the term “positive destinations”, which we hear a lot. Did you say that that is the tracking of someone leaving school for the first three months?

So, you are recommending that they should have a career structure. What about pay?

You are familiar with that. I just wanted to get that out there.

On the back of that comment from Emma Harper, I go back to my principle, which is that members need to be free to lodge the motions that they feel are appropriate. If there is a problem with the chamber desk team—I am not sure that there is—we would have to rectify that from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body or Parliamentary Bureau angle because, again, I think that members need to be free to do what they think is right and in the interests of their constituents. We have made the case that those motions, however other people might judge them, are very valuable for communities, organisations and individuals. To somehow have that censored, restricted or cancelled would be wholly inappropriate.

I have a lot of sympathy for what Graeme Dey is getting at, but I agree completely with Bob Doris—in fact, I would go further. It would not be in order for us to prescribe what members should consider to be an appropriate motion to put before the Parliament. It has been suggested in private conversation that such motions may not look like much to those who sit in the Parliament, but they mean a great deal to the people who are their focus.

We should therefore leave things be. By all means, the committee can monitor the situation, but we should leave things be and let members get on. Members of the public can make up their own minds about the quality of motions and about whether they think that they go too far. Individual members must be self-governing and must make that choice for themselves, convener.

Good morning.

Sanctions?

Okay.