Procedures Committee, 19 Dec 2000
Meeting date: Tuesday, December 19, 2000
Official Report
203KB pdf
Correspondence (Presiding Officer)
That takes us to item 5, which arises from a suggestion that I made to the clerk. The background, as I am sure members will recall, is that the Presiding Officer approached us a long time ago about how questions to the Presiding Officer might be handled if the Presiding Officer, or the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, were to take oral questions in the chamber.
The Presiding Officer is particularly anxious about the fact that, if there is a session in which questions are put about the Holyrood project, he is not the obvious person to take such questions—the convener of the progress group would be. A similar issue might arise in relation to other groups that the SPCB establishes on an ad hoc basis.
After the previous committee meeting, I came up with a form of words that, as members can see, is not particularly polished, but is a suggestion of how we might empower the SPCB to put forward someone who is not one of its members but is more appropriate to answer questions in such circumstances. If members think that the suggestion is reasonable, it can be considered along with everything else.
What is the state of play regarding other questions to the Presiding Officer in his role as convener of the corporate body? He was not enthusiastic—
I think that in principle he accepts that the circumstances could arise in which it would be reasonable for him to answer an oral question. His concern—if I have understood rightly—is that, in relation to the Holyrood project but also conceivably in relation to some other piece of work, he might not be the appropriate person to answer the question, as somebody else might have that remit.
The standing orders allow any member of the corporate body to answer questions. For example, if Des McNulty was in charge of something, he could reply. The issue is that the corporate body has set up the Holyrood progress group for a specific purpose; in these and any similar circumstances in future, there could be someone more appropriate than the Presiding Officer to answer questions. I am seeking to facilitate that—indeed, I hope that it might lead to a question-and-answer session, although the indications so far are that the powers that be are not keen on that. We should note the suggestion in paper PR/00/14/5.
Members indicated agreement.