Official Report 135KB pdf
I took the opportunity of speaking about forms of address to Sir David Steel, who wrote to me in the summer on the matter, because he was receiving correspondence and representations on it. The Presiding Officer and deputies feel that we should stick with the present titles, and that, if we do not want to say "Presiding Officer", we should say "Sir David", "Mr Reid", or "Ms Ferguson", and should not insert any other convenient title. They are anxious to get away from members saying "Madam Deputy Presiding Officer", which is a cumbersome form of address; you will see from the representations that that is exactly what George Reid has said. Ms Ferguson is happy to be addressed as "Presiding Officer"—presumably leaving out "Deputy"—and is willing to be identified as "Speaker". It is understandable that a number of members use the term Speaker as it is used in many Parliaments.
I think that you are right. One of the criticisms of the title Presiding Officer was that it was a cumbersome term, but it is only cumbersome if it is prefixed by "Madam" or "Mr". The Presiding Officer and the two deputies have accepted the term Presiding Officer, so I can see no reason for changing it.
Is it appropriate for a Deputy Presiding Officer who is in the chair to be addressed as Presiding Officer, because while they are there in the chair they are the Presiding Officer?
Absolutely. I do not see the need to use the term Deputy.
Yes.
Let us strip away the prefixes, but also agree that is perfectly acceptable for members to say "Sir David", "Mr Reid", or "Ms Ferguson". We should not dabble with moderators, conveners, preses, and other elaborate titles from the past. There will be some people who are sorry that we do not have a president, but that is perhaps in a different context.