Plenary, 29 Nov 2001
Meeting date: Thursday, November 29, 2001
Official Report
773KB pdf
Points of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There is a motion lodged for debate today—S1M-2495—on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. I advise the Presiding Officer that the Parliamentary Bureau has not met to discuss, nor has it consulted on, the motion. Would it be in order for the motion to be re-presented at a later date in order to do two things? First, the motion could be dealt with after the vote for Deputy Presiding Officer to avoid any perceived presumption of the election as Deputy Presiding Officer of any member of the chamber and secondly, it could be approved by all four members of the Parliamentary Bureau.
I have a second, more substantive, point of order. Can the Presiding Officer confirm that the role of Presiding Officers is to be independent representatives of this Parliament, and that there is no place for any member of the Executive to instruct members of this Parliament how they should vote in the secret ballot?
There are two quite separate issues. On the first point, I have received notification that motion S1M-2495, to which Fiona Hyslop referred, has been withdrawn. Therefore what happens later is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau.
I wish to say a word about the second issue. The standing orders make it quite clear that the three Presiding Officers cannot all be from the same party. That is clearly part of our constitution. In the event that any one party had a majority in the chamber, it could not control the chair. That is a very important principle in our proceedings.
The ballot is secret, as I said yesterday, and every member has an equal vote in a secret ballot. Discussions that take place in private meetings of party groups are absolutely nothing to do with the chair. Anyone can indicate their preference for any particular candidate in those meetings if they wish to do so. It is absolutely nothing to do with the chamber.
I will say a word about the roles of Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer, because they are not always understood outside Parliament. The Presiding Officer is under an obligation to withdraw from party politics in Scotland. That has happened. The Deputy Presiding Officers have a much more difficult job, because when they are in the chair they share total independence, and they share the service of the Parliament when they represent it abroad, but otherwise, when they are in the chamber, they have the same freedom as every other member to continue to act as a member of a political party. I must say that both Patricia Ferguson and George Reid adopted a self-denying ordinance such that they have not participated in blatantly partisan issues in the chamber. That was widely appreciated, and I am sure that it will be followed by whoever is elected. [Applause.]
The second point is not really a point of order for me. What goes on inside party meetings is nothing to do with the chair.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek clarification that the positions of Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer are parliamentary appointments, rather than party appointments, and that they are not subject to party nominations.
Absolutely. That is why there is a secret ballot of members. Clearly, nobody can instruct any member how to vote. That is perfectly obvious by the unique nature of the election that we are about to have. May I proceed to it?
Further to that point of order—I am sorry to labour the point, but it is a matter of great concern to the Parliament, Presiding Officer—if it came to your attention that any nominee had been put up by a party leader, and that members of that party had been instructed to vote for that nominee, would you be concerned?
I am about to announce the nominations and I tell members that no party leader has nominated a candidate for the election. That is all that matters.