Meeting of the Parliament [Last updated 18:24]

Meeting date: Thursday, September 24, 2026

Official Report 309KB pdf

Point of Order

16:58

Presiding Officer, I ask you for some clarity on procedures in relation to rule 13.6A.3 of standing orders. I understand that our standing orders guidance sets out clearly a proper system for members to enter questions each week and what happens when a member’s name has been drawn. Your own change to standing orders, rule 13.6A.3—which I welcome—gives members whose names have been drawn useful flexibility to swap places with other selected members.

I am sure that you agree, Presiding Officer, that the system must be clear, consistent and applied equally. I seek clarity as to whether the proper procedures were followed on the occasion that I wish to describe. On Monday 31 August, Malcolm Offord’s name was drawn at number 3 of eight for general questions on Tuesday 8 September. As we all know, party leaders do not normally enter question draws—it is more of a convention than a rule, but it is the convention.

We have all been there. We have all put our names into draws and realised that we cannot make the question session or that we have managed to mess up lodging the question. The usual result is that the question is marked down as not lodged. It is a reasonable badge of shame—almost a rite of passage—and a useful deterrent for some members that reminds us to get our acts together the next time we are drawn.

I was confused, therefore, when I read the published list later in the week and saw only seven general questions listed for Tuesday 8 September. Malcolm Offord’s name had been completely removed. There was no lodged question, no not-lodged badge and no explanation; it was just gone. I had never seen that before, and it raised an obvious question, which I think might also have been raised with you, Presiding Officer, about consistency of treatment. Therefore, Presiding Officer, can you clarify whether the proper procedures were followed in this case? If they were, perhaps the Presiding Officer will enlighten all of us as to how, in the future, one might be afforded similar treatment to that which Malcolm Offord appears to have received.

I assure Mr Kerr that there is a convention that party leaders do not go into the draw. My understanding is that Mr Offord wanted to follow that convention, and he did not intend for his name to be in the draw at all. That was therefore drawn to the attention of the chamber desk, and we had some discussions about it. It was decided that, as there was no intention of him being in the draw, his name was removed.

It was not the same as a situation in which someone puts their name in for the draw and then does not get their question in on time, for example, or when there is some other reason why a question is not lodged. He had no intention of having his name in the draw because he feels that it is not appropriate for a party leader to have their name in the general draw, as it might deprive another member of an opportunity. It was therefore agreed that his name would be withdrawn and that the name would not be published.

I hope that that clarifies the matter.