Siobhan McMahon MSP

Welcome to Siobhan McMahon MSP's biography pages

Siobhan McMahon MSP

Here you can find out about your MSPs' political activities and how to get in touch with them.

Parliamentary Activities

Search for other Speeches made by Siobhan McMahon

Meeting of the Parliament 27 January 2015 : 27 January 2015
Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

This afternoon’s debate has been useful. I am pleased that the Government wishes to draw the work of PACE to the attention of members today. We normally mention PACE in written or oral questions. When a member questions the Government ministers—or indeed the First Minister—on the support that is being offered to constituents who are being made redundant, the response will inevitably mention PACE.

As we have heard this afternoon, PACE was established in 2000 and was originally intended to play a role in preventing closures and redundancies as well as in dealing with the consequences. For far too long, however, the focus has been shifting from prevention to mitigation, which is regrettable.

If the role of PACE in prevention has been or is being replaced by another agency, that would be one thing. I do not think that any of us would have a problem with having one strategy that involves prevention and another strategy for mitigation. However, as we have heard this afternoon, that is not the case. Unfortunately, the Government has concentrated its efforts on mitigation, and the results are not always what we would wish them to be.



Meeting of the Parliament 27 January 2015 : 27 January 2015
Siobhan McMahon

I do not know whether the member was in the chamber for Paul Martin’s speech. He noted that if intervention had taken place with one of the businesses in his constituency, the outcome might have been different. That is one example.

I would be interested to know what role PACE has played in seeking to prevent recent closures and redundancies, and how successful it has been in that role.

At the PACE summit in 2009, which was entitled “Working Together to Address Redundancies: Partnership, Prevention and Programmes”, there was a ministerial commitment on the need for PACE to become a proactive force for the anticipation and prevention of company closures and redundancies. Is that still the case?

I will also be interested to know when the next PACE summit will be held, and what issues the minister believes will be addressed there. Delegates at the previous summit agreed that a proactive approach to help people from work to work produced more positive results. In order to support that approach, retraining and upskilling need to happen earlier in workplaces, prior to redundancies taking place. It is now six years since the summit took place, so will the minister, when he sums up, tell the chamber what progress has been made?

In the PACE client experience survey of 2014, which was commissioned by Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Government, there was little mention of the prevention strategy that was spoken so highly of during the 2009 summit by the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop. In fact, the findings of the report were quite concerning. For instance, the survey found that more than one fifth of those who had received a career guidance interview or information about training and funding sources expressed concern that it had come too late.

That was not a new finding, as the same thing had been found in the 2012 client experience survey. It is concerning not only that the same problems are being experienced by those using PACE two years on from when the original problem was identified but that the problem is getting worse and not better. The report states:

“The PACE Presentation and Guide is received by the largest proportion of clients and often represents the first contact that an individual has with PACE. Around one quarter of new clients who attended the presentation felt that this had come too late in the redundancy process”.

Twenty-three per cent of respondents reported that that was the case, which was an increase from 2012, when 17 per cent of those attending expressed that view.

The report does not shine a light on anything new and, in fact, clearly reinforces the point about prevention—a point first brought to the Government’s attention in 2009—and about the greater need for it in workplaces that are at risk of redundancies, which begs the question: what is the Government doing about the matter?

The Government may say that there is only so much that it can do to make the PACE model work. I accept that up to a point. I fully accept that, in order for the Government to have control over prevention, it needs the help of employers. The minister made that point in his opening speech and it was reinforced by Adam Ingram. In order for it to work, the model that we are currently working with requires employers to notify agencies prior to the announcement of redundancies. Given that that rarely happens, I have to ask whether the Scottish Government’s aspiration for PACE is simply one of helping people into new jobs. If not, what is the Government doing to change either its model or its interaction with employers?

In addition to that flaw in the current model, the 2014 client survey also provided further worrying data. For example, only 45 per cent said that PACE had had some influence on their move back into employment, and only 8 per cent stated that it had “made all the difference”. Not only does that mark a fall from 2012, when the figure was 53 per cent, but it is extremely concerning that less than half of clients think that PACE has had an impact on them getting a new job. In fact, the survey found that the top answer from respondents, when asked their views on the benefits of PACE services, was “Don’t know”, at 20 per cent. The third most popular answer was “No benefit”, from 15 per cent of respondents. If PACE’s main objective is to secure future employment or training opportunities for people, it seems to be failing those that it seeks to serve.

The good news from the survey was that around three quarters of clients had secured some form of employment. However, although that figure is to be welcomed, what we do not know from it is what direct role PACE had in helping to secure that employment. Did the PACE team set up the interviews, inform the client of the interviews, help to write clients’ CVs and give them interview tips, or was the job found by the client themselves or through a different agency? We do not have the statistics to answer that, but it is something that should be reported in such a survey.

In fact, that was called for in the evaluation document, commissioned by SDS, following the PACE support offered to the former employees at Hall’s of Broxburn. In the recommendations at the end of the document, it said that it was worth

“Exploring whether or not it is possible to establish a client tracking to capture outputs”.

There are a number of options there, including undertaking a survey of redundant workers and using HMRC data. I would be interested to know whether the Government has considered developing such a model since that recommendation.

As we have heard from Liam McArthur and Margaret McCulloch, the client survey has shown that two fifths of clients moved into a job with lower skill requirements than their previous position. That represents a decrease from the 47 per cent that was reported in 2012. That is good news, although it is disappointing to note that it still occurs in such high numbers. It would therefore be interesting to know what steps PACE and its partners have taken to address that.

The 2014 survey contained information in relation to the way in which clients received information. It was found that one in 8 people, 12 per cent, had accessed online PACE support and only one in 20, 6 per cent, had accessed the PACE contact centre helpline. It is clear that more must be done to promote the services to users, and I would be interested to know whether an ad campaign or something similar will be run to promote such services in the future.

I feel that I should conclude my speech with the main asks from respondents to the survey. They have suggested some improvements to the current system, and I hope that those can be achieved for future service users. The recommendations are for a more personalised service; for longer and more frequent help sessions; and for a more timely point of intervention, with interactions starting earlier in the redundancy process. Scottish Labour has its own recommendation, which we have put to the Scottish Government: the resilience fund. We believe that the fund would provide an additional tool for local authorities and their partners, which would help local economies that are threatened by a jobs crisis. The examples that were given by Margaret McCulloch and Paul Martin, and Drew Smith’s comments on the issue of continuity of work, show that the fund could help in those circumstances in partnership with what is already on offer.

The debate has been an important one that leaves us with many questions about PACE and the support that is on offer. I hope that the minister will be able to answer some of those in his summing-up speech.

17:21  

Meeting of the Parliament 08 January 2015 : 08 January 2015
Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I welcome the fact that Scotland has the lowest level of unemployment in the UK. That is of course good news, but it would be wrong to think that a lower rate of unemployment tells the full story. In fact, the unemployment rate for men in Scotland is higher than the rate in the rest of the UK, and those aged between 50 and 64 in Scotland are more likely to be unemployed than those in the rest of the UK. That is just one reason why boosting the Scottish economy is so important.

Another key reason is the underemployment rate. According to a SPICe briefing, an estimated 58,600 people aged between 16 and 24 are regarded as underemployed, which equates to about 19 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds who are in employment. That is an extremely important statistic, as the fact that we are not using our workforce in the best possible way means that our economy is not working to its capacity. Given the importance and significance of that problem, what plans does the Scottish Government have to solve it?

We must have a more concentrated effort on women and employment. The rate of women in employment in Scotland is better than that in the rest of the UK, which is welcome, but there is still a lot more to do. Given that, in 2013, it was estimated that more women than men were underemployed—the figures were 119,600 and 114,500 respectively—we have to begin to address the type of work that is on offer to women. That is of course a historical problem that many Governments have wrestled with, but we are now in 2015 and it is simply not good enough to continue with warm words rather than action.

The fact remains that there is a 17.5 per cent pay gap between men and women in Scotland. That was highlighted today at the joint UK Government and Scottish Women’s Convention gender pay gap event. I hope that from that event comes a solution to that unacceptable statistic.

According to a SPICe briefing on earnings in Scotland in 2014,

“The difference between men’s and women’s pay is ... a complex issue that is difficult to cover using one indicator.”

However, one measure that SPICe uses to provide a useful comparison of male and female pay is hourly pay excluding overtime. That is used because men are more likely than women to be in full-time employment and to work overtime, so annual or weekly pay does not provide a fair comparison. On average, females earn £10.63 an hour, compared with £12.88 for men. Additionally, although median full-time hourly earnings excluding overtime have increased for men and women in Scotland, only men’s earnings have had a real-terms increase.

That is the situation that women in Scotland face today. The majority of those who find themselves in work have less pay than their male counterparts, and that may be compounded by a failure to use them in the correct way, which leads to higher rates of underemployment. As a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I have heard evidence from women and representative bodies on the need for more meaningful work for women and for the work that they do to be recognised financially. They were clear that we need more flexible working patterns but that we should not replace the word “flexible” with “part time”.

I urge the Government to produce a plan for flexible working in the public sector for men and women. I believe that, if we had such a plan, our underemployment rates would fall, women would be able to do more hours of work and would not be restricted by part-time hours, and earnings would rise. That would mean that the situation in which 14 per cent of men and 20 per cent of women earn less than the living wage, as was the case last year, was a thing of the past. As a result, we would see great benefits to our economy.

It has been widely reported today, although not on the Scottish Government’s website, that there has been a record underspend of some £440 million by the Government. That is simply unbelievable, given the challenges that many in Scotland are facing day to day.

Of course, having an underspend is not something new. Governments of all natures, local and national, have underspent their budgets in the past. People understand that. However, we do not understand it when we have people queueing at food banks, people unable to heat their homes, a crisis in our national health service and our teachers having to pay for materials for their classrooms while paying more in their pension contributions. The Government has failed to spend the money that it has and has failed to spend it in a considerable way. All of that has an impact on our economy. It is not the way to achieve the social equality that the Government talks about in its motion.

It is clear that that money could have been put to greater use if it had been devolved locally. Given that the Smith agreement recognises the need for greater local devolution to achieve greater empowerment of our communities, I ask the Government what action it has taken on that recommendation and how it will involve our local authorities in plans that it might have started work on.

When I started my speech, I welcomed the fact that our unemployment rates are falling. I welcome that and I wish to see the rates decrease further but, without the ambition and plans to do that, I fear that that might not be achievable, given the other challenges that I mentioned. As a result, our economy cannot reach its full potential. The Government must address that now.

15:46  

Meeting of the Parliament 06 January 2015 : 06 January 2015
Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

The situation with City Link has had a knock-on effect on some small to medium-sized businesses, including a recruitment business in my region that is owed a considerable amount of money by City Link. What action can the Scottish Government take to ensure that such businesses are supported at this time?



Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2014 : 18 December 2014
Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I am pleased to take part in the debate. I, too, thank the Welfare Reform Committee, not only for publishing the reports and securing a debate on the matter but for its commitment to welfare as an issue for the past two years. The work that the committee has done and the dedication that its members, and its convener, Michael McMahon, have shown to their subject matter is a fantastic example to other committees in the Parliament of what can be achieved.

The report talks about the marked increase in the use of food banks in our country. In order to get a true sense of what we are discussing, I thought it important to look at the history of the establishment of food banks across the world. It was in America in 1967 that John van Hengel, a volunteer with the St Vincent de Paul Society, first established the concept. Mr van Hengel saw a widow and her 10 children looking through rubbish behind grocery stores for food. He helped her to find edible food and asked the store owners to give him the products that they would have thrown out so that he could distribute them to the needy.

In 1984, the first food bank was established in Europe. That was followed by the establishment of the European Federation of Food Banks in 1986. The UK and other wealthy nations did not set up food banks until later. Since 2004, Germany, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, Lithuania and Serbia have joined the network, followed in 2010 and 2011 by the Netherlands, Switzerland, Estonia and Denmark, and in 2013 by Bulgaria and Ukraine.

The issue is not that food banks exist—as I have demonstrated, they have existed throughout the world for some time—but that there is a growing reliance on them in society. In 2004, the Trussell Trust, a Christian-based charity, had just two food banks; now, it has 423. That shows just how reliant many in society have become on that type of provision. In a few short years, people of my age and younger have not only become aware of food banks but come to see them as an integral part of their communities. That is the most disappointing thing for me.

Pupils from St Andrew’s high school in Coatbridge—in your constituency, Presiding Officer—visited the Parliament today and told me that, only last week, they raised around £1,000 for their local food bank. The young people should be congratulated on raising such a fantastic amount of money. However, the fact that they had to do that so that someone—maybe a classmate—would get a meal this Christmas should not only embarrass those of us in the chamber today but embarrass and shame the coalition Government even more.

The findings of the Welfare Reform Committee make for uncomfortable reading and could not be clearer: the measures that the UK Government introduced are creating reliance on food banks—it is as simple as that. With £14.9 billion-worth of cuts having been made to benefits, tax credits, pay and pensions since 2010, what other outcome could there be? Not only have people had a cut to their benefit or had their benefit stopped altogether but, on top of that, many have faced intolerable sanctions.

The UK Government may say that sanctions have been designed to promote the correct and proper use of the welfare system and enable effective and efficient use of resources that support people on the path back to work and, ultimately, out of poverty. However, we have found, and the report demonstrates, that sanctions are being used to punish people. Sanctions have left some of those most in need without money for up to three years. That point was made repeatedly in several briefings—in particular, Inclusion Scotland’s briefing—that we received for today’s debate.

From those briefings, we learn that, since October 2013, claimants wishing to challenge a decision by the DWP to refuse an award of benefit or impose a sanction must request a “mandatory reconsideration” before they can appeal to the tribunal. Nearly 25 per cent of JSA sanctions have been subject to mandatory reconsideration, and in more than half those cases, the sanction has been overturned. For ESA claimants, nearly half the decisions to impose a sanction have gone to mandatory reconsideration, with nearly half being successfully overturned.

Although the DWP has still not published any statistics on mandatory reconsideration, which was introduced in October 2013, the measure appears to have caused an almost total collapse in appeals to tribunals. Only 23 JSA or ESA sanctions went to tribunals for an appeal decision between April and June 2014, compared with the usual figure of at least 1,000 per month. Although the UK Government claims that sanctions are a last resort, it is evident that they are being imposed almost as a matter of course, with no opportunity for the claimant to give reasonable cause for the failure that leads to the sanction. That is the impact that the so-called welfare reforms have brought to many people’s doors across Scotland and the UK. It is no wonder that more and more people are finding it harder to feed themselves or their families.

People must be supported by the state in their hour of need. I therefore welcome the Smith commission’s agreement on welfare powers and on giving this Parliament the ability to create new and additional benefits as well as top up existing benefits. I believe that that will give us an opportunity to address some of the many issues that affect our constituents, particularly women. As Engender points out in its briefing for today’s debate:

“The UK’s social security system is a facet of gender inequality as demonstrated by the highly gendered impact of ‘welfare reform’, which is seeing women and their children at increased risk of poverty, abuse, violence and physical and mental health issues.”

The briefing goes on to say:

“The Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament must therefore use the opportunity of new powers over social security to ensure that these patterns are redressed where possible.”

I could not agree more, and I hope that the Government will use every power coming its way to help rebuild the people’s trust in the welfare system, because that trust has been lost.

15:46  

Meeting of the Parliament 03 December 2014 : 03 December 2014
2. Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to combat bullying in schools. (S4O-03762)



Meeting of the Parliament 03 December 2014 : 03 December 2014
Siobhan McMahon

The minister will be aware of Enable Scotland’s new campaign #bethechange, which is aimed at tackling abusive and offensive language about people who have learning disabilities. By working in collaboration with a number of partners, Enable Scotland has developed a school resource for teachers of secondary 1 and 2 pupils that will raise awareness of learning disability and take an early-intervention approach to promoting positive attitudes to learning disability.

Does the minister support Enable Scotland’s campaign? What action will he take to encourage local authorities to implement in secondary schools the four-week lesson plan, which will focus on educating children about learning disability, from the 2015-16 academic year?



Meeting of the Parliament 03 December 2014 : 03 December 2014
Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I am pleased to be able to take part in this afternoon’s debate. I will highlight just one of the housing issues that my constituents face.

I was contacted some months ago by a constituent who works as a porter in the national health service. He was forced to take a private-rented flat after his long-term relationship broke up. As a result, he finds that his NHS wage meets only his rent and household bills. His situation is so bad that he has to go to his parents every night for his evening meal. This man is in his 40s and has worked his entire adult life, and he cannot afford his rent. That is nothing short of scandalous, and it is one of the many reasons why I am supporting Shelter’s make renting right campaign.

I am particularly pleased to support Shelter’s call for more flexibility with regards to the tenancy agreement. Shelter states:

“The private rented sector is changing. Current demand suggests that while some people want the option of a tenancy that lasts for as long as they need it, others want flexibility if they need to move. We want a tenancy regime that can respond to people’s needs and work for both landlords and tenants. For tenants, it is about striking the balance between being able to live as long as they need in a property, with due consideration given to the landlord in terms of adequate notice when they want to leave.”

I believe that that is a practical measure, which will benefit not only tenants but landlords, too. By offering an agreement that benefits both parties, greater trust and commitment will be established, and as a result there will be greater belief in the system—something that is missing from the current tenancy agreement.

We need to take action on the spiralling costs of private rents. It is simply not good enough that hardworking people have no other choice than to get themselves into huge amounts of debt to keep a roof over their heads. Given that 13 per cent of housing stock is in the private rented sector and that one in four private rented households have children, we need to address the massive problem in the sector quickly. It must be a priority for the Government and for this Parliament.

Only a few weeks ago, I asked the minister a very straightforward question in this chamber. I asked her whether she supported Shelter’s campaign. It was a question that needed a simple yes or no answer, but I got neither in return. I hope that she will be definite in her answer today, will once and for all pledge her support for the campaign and will confirm what action she will take given that—in her own words—the Government has known about this problem since 2010.

To hear that the number of people who are living in poverty in the private rented sector has doubled in the past decade should make all politicians extremely uncomfortable. That is why we need action now and that is why I ask the minister to support Shelter Scotland’s campaign and to back Scottish Labour’s proposals to introduce a bill on the private rented sector. We want a bill to provide people with greater security of tenure and we wish to see a cap on rent rises. That would make a huge difference to tenants’ lives, and it could be legislated on quickly. I hope that the minister will back our proposals.

On a separate note, I was delighted that the Smith commission suggested that our Parliament should receive the power to legislate on socioeconomic areas. I hope that that will mean establishing an equality impact assessment. I called for that in my submission to the Smith commission. Such a power would allow the Government to truly assess whether its policies are making the difference it would like to see by reducing poverty in our communities. An equality impact assessment would be particularly useful in assessing how effective the Scottish Government’s policy on housing and housing stock has been in reducing inequality in Scotland.

I hope that the minister is listening to the requests being made of her today and that she can find a way of addressing the concerns of members, charities, campaigners and—most importantly—tenants, who need action now, not more warm words.

15:51  

Meeting of the Parliament 03 December 2014 : 03 December 2014
Siobhan McMahon

Will the minister take an intervention?



Meeting of the Parliament 03 December 2014 : 03 December 2014
Siobhan McMahon

The question was about whether the minister supports Shelter, not whether Shelter supports the minister.

Vote DetailMSP VoteResult

S4M-12182.1 Alex Fergusson: The Chilcot Inquiry—As an amendment to motion S4M-12182 in the name of N
>> Show more
AbstainDefeated

S4M-12182 Nicola Sturgeon: The Chilcot Inquiry—That the Parliament calls for Sir John Chilcot’s offi
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-12176 John Swinney: Community Charge Debt (Scotland) Bill—That the Parliament agrees to the gene
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-12160.2 Michael Matheson: Women Offenders—As an amendment to motion S4M-12160 in the name of Kez
>> Show more
AbstainCarried

S4M-12160.3 Margaret Mitchell: Women Offenders—As an amendment to motion S4M-12160 in the name of Ke
>> Show more
YesDefeated

S4M-12160 Kezia Dugdale: Women Offenders—That the Parliament welcomes the decision of the Scottish G
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-12154.1 Lewis Macdonald: Partnership Action for Continuing Employment (PACE) – Supporting Indivi
>> Show more
YesDefeated

S4M-12120.1 Jenny Marra: 2020 Vision, the Strategic Forward Direction of the NHS—As an amendment to
>> Show more
Not VotedDefeated

S4M-12101 John Swinney: Budget (Scotland) (No.4) Bill—That the Parliament agrees to the general prin
>> Show more
AbstainCarried

S4M-12095.4 Ken Macintosh: Tackling Inequalities—As an amendment to motion S4M-12095 in the name of
>> Show more
YesDefeated

Search for other Motions lodged by Siobhan McMahon
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Motion S4M-11807: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 04/12/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11806: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 04/12/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11805: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 04/12/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11793: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 03/12/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11791: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 03/12/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11790: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 03/12/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11579: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 17/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11578: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 17/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11413: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 04/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11307: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 27/10/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Search for other Questions asked by Siobhan McMahon
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Question S4W-24239: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 29/01/2015 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-24103: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 20/01/2015 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-24002: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 13/01/2015 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-23623: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 10/12/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03762: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 24/11/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-23277: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 20/11/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-23103: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 11/11/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03724: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 10/11/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03615: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 20/10/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-22805: Siobhan McMahon, Central Scotland, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 08/10/2014 Show Full Question >>

[519] Related Links Pod - 0 28294

Further information

Email our Public Information Service for more information.