Madam,

Your account of Ceredigion council comically failing to pass a motion on climate change (‘Mix-up sees council fail to declare climate crisis’) makes me wonder whether any of those present at that meeting were at all up to the job.

Your report gives the impression that those present at the meeting believed that the “amendment” proposed by Cllr Alun Williams (or was it actually proposed by council leader Ellen ap Gwynn, as an alternative report I have seen suggests) was a complete replacement for the original motion.

But as anyone familiar with the process of taking decisions in committees knows, an amendment is supposed to change a motion, not completely obliterate it. That is called a “direct negative”, and is not normally allowed. If you don’t want any part of a motion to get through, you are supposed to simply vote against it.

Whoever was chairing the meeting should have ruled out the “amendment” if it was intended as a direct replacement.

And if it was acceptable as an amendment and it was passed, that would have created a new “substantive motion”, which would have itself needed to be voted on before that item of business could be seen as concluded.

In fact if the “amendment” was accepted as an amendment and no substantive motion was ever voted on then the “amendment” cannot have finally been passed. Amendments cannot be approved and then left hanging in the air on their own. They have to amend something else.

None of which should need explaining to competent people serving as members of a local authority, which is after all quite important work. Climate change is certainly important. Perhaps our lot in Ceredigion need to be sent on a course.

Yours etc, Dave Bradney, Joppa, Llanrhystud.

Have your say on the local issues affecting you - email [email protected] or join in the conversation on our Facebook page