Fiona Hyslop MSP

Welcome to Fiona Hyslop MSP's biography pages

Fiona Hyslop MSP

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

  • Member for: Linlithgow
  • Region: Lothian
  • Party: Scottish National Party

Fiona is a member of the following Committees:

Fiona is a member of the following Cross-Party Groups:

Parliamentary Activities

Search for other Speeches made by Fiona Hyslop

European and External Relations Committee 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Fiona Hyslop (Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs)


European and External Relations Committee 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Fiona Hyslop

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak.

This evidence session comes at a very important time in European affairs. The European parliamentary hearings for the new European Commission concluded this week under the new President, Jean-Claude Juncker. We expect the new commission to be formed next month, following approval by the European Parliament. We understand that there may be one proposal that has not been accepted. The Scottish Government will watch closely as the new commission sets out its new agenda.

The committee has long been interested in the Scottish Government’s EU action plan. The current action plan framework was established in 2009, and has been updated regularly since then. It does not seek to address every aspect of EU business that the Scottish Government covers; rather, it pulls out some key areas. Our EU business has evolved quite significantly from where we were in 2009.

We are refreshing our action plan, and we will take account of the new European Commission and the new European Parliament, following the elections in May. We hope that the committee will wish to be involved in that work to refresh the action plan. We continue to publish updated annexes to the action plan twice a year, coinciding with the rotating presidency. We share those with the committee, and I hope that you find them useful.

The latest annex was published in August. It covers our work under the Greek presidency and looks ahead to the current Italian presidency. There is positive overlap between the Scottish Government’s priorities and those of the Italian presidency, as is highlighted in the action plan. Scotland and Italy have similar priorities for engaging with member states, the EU institutions and other EU stakeholders.


I met the Italian ambassador yesterday. As members will be aware, there are more than 6,000 Italians living in Scotland, and our two nations have rich cultural, tourism, trade and industry ties. I was in Siena at the weekend, speaking at the Pontignano conference. This is the third consecutive year in which I have attended. There was, of course, great interest in the Scottish referendum. As the greatest democratic experience in Scotland’s history, it has many lessons that people are interested in.

The Italian presidency of the EU is the first of a trio with Latvia and Luxembourg. Our EU teams in Scotland and Brussels are working closely with the Italian presidency, the EU institutions, the United Kingdom representation and other key EU stakeholders, to ensure that Scotland’s priorities are communicated across all three European Council presidencies.

The Italians have highlighted three priority areas for their presidency—you will be hearing from the ambassador later. The first is a Europe of opportunities, which concerns economic and financial activities. One key area on which the Scottish Government is seeking to engage with the Italian presidency is youth employment. Scotland has the only youth employment minister or cabinet secretary in the EU. The Scottish Government has marshalled more than £143 million for the period 2012-13 to 2014-15 to support young people into and towards work, and our efforts are making a difference. In 2013, the proportion of 16 to 19-year-olds who were not in education, employment or training decreased in all 32 local authority areas of Scotland. Bearing in mind the period that we have gone through, that is quite significant. I know that there is interest across Europe in learning from and sharing our experience.

Other areas in the opportunities agenda include energy and climate change, the single market, a digital economy, action on industrial policy and financing for growth.

The second priority area is in relation to a Europe of rights, which covers justice and home affairs issues, including immigration. The importance of the immigration issue was clear in the results of the European elections, with the rise in popularity of parties promoting an anti-immigration agenda. That is clearly important to the Italians, with the on-going humanitarian situation in the Mediterranean, but we agree that that is a long-term strategic issue that requires all the EU to take responsibility.

As regards justice, we expect further progress on the European public prosecutor’s office, which was a hugely complicated matter to start off with. We understand that the proposals for the office, as well as the data protection package, are now in better shape. A number of member states share Scotland’s concerns about the EPPO proposal. However, negotiations are progressing in a positive direction: more power is being given to the national level, with greater flexibility in the structure. Although the UK will not participate in the measure, it is an important priority for the Scottish Government, given that it is likely that Scottish law enforcement and prosecution authorities will have to work with the EPPO once it is established. I know that the committee has already taken an interest in the matter.

The third priority for the Italian presidency, which is that of a European Union of global engagement, encompasses the external dimension of the EU. That includes trade and crisis management, where the European Commission will present a package of enlargement and the presidency will work on free trade, with a clear focus on agreeing the EU-United States transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I know that the committee has a great deal of interest in that, too. The UK is one of the countries that will benefit most from the TTIP agreement and, within the UK, Scotland is well placed to benefit in terms of jobs and services. We will continue to monitor that, as well as continuing to identify work on developing the EU’s approach to trade with Asia.

The priorities of the Italian presidency are not only short-term goals for the country’s six-month European Council calendar; they are also benchmarks for the incoming European Commission mandate, which will be seeking progress and change across the EU for the next five years. Our engagement over the period is not just about the short term; it is also about setting the Commission’s agenda over the longer term.

The question of EU reform will be present. That follows some of the politics around the anti-European parties that gained seats in the European Parliament in May and, within the UK, the Conservative Party’s in/out EU membership referendum promise. The Scottish Government opposes an in/out referendum in 2017 because exit from the EU would carry significant risk for growth and jobs in Scotland. We believe that reform is best achieved from within the EU. In the summer, I circulated to the committee our proposals for EU reform within existing treaties, which would progress reform without risking aspects that are important to Scotland.

European and External Relations Committee 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Fiona Hyslop

It is important to look at both sides of TTIP—the benefits and the problems. If we reacted just to the concerns, we would not meet our responsibility to support jobs and growth. The Government supports the TTIP proposals, but that does not mean that TTIP’s purpose and agenda do not require close scrutiny.

On inward investment, there is strong US investment in Scotland for jobs and growth—earlier this week, the First Minister outlined some of our progress on that. In the past year in particular, Scotland has had one of its best inward investment periods since devolution.

We must weigh up the positives for trade opportunities, such as reduced costs for small businesses. One challenge in Scotland is internationalising a lot of our small and medium-sized enterprises so that they can export more. A number of members have raised that issue with me. We must support the opportunity for Scottish businesses and jobs that exporting more will provide.

The downside—which is where you are coming from and on which you have had approaches—comes from the potential risks of TTIP for some of our key services. The committee will be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing is in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Health and the European Commission on cast-iron assurances that, whatever approach is taken to the provision of health services in the rest of the UK, TTIP will not affect the Scottish Government’s ability to determine how the national health service is provided.

We want to engage constructively with the UK Government and the European Commission on TTIP, but we are clear that we feel strongly about some issues, such as the importance of the public provision of health services in Scotland. I have previously raised TTIP with the UK Government. A JMC Europe meeting will take place on Monday—unfortunately, I cannot attend it, but Roseanna Cunningham, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, will be there. We do not normally share the agenda items before meetings—we normally report afterwards—but I can confirm that TTIP will be one of the issues on the agenda for that meeting with the UK Government.

European and External Relations Committee 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Fiona Hyslop

Roseanna Cunningham answered a question in Parliament this week on the issue, which we feel strongly about. We would not agree to any legislative consent motion—any Sewel motion—to allow the UK Government to remove human rights aspects from our provisions. The Parliament was established to comply with ECHR and we have been proud of that.

Two issues arise: one is to do with the practicalities and the impact of the policy; the second, which I think is more important, is to do with the politics of the issue. The UK’s attitude towards Europe has marginalised the UK in many different ways, and to walk away from human rights and the application of ECHR in this country would send a signal that further marginalised the UK, not just in Europe but further afield.

Why is that important? From a UK perspective—the UK can speak for itself, but Scotland obviously has an interest, as a continuing part of the UK—the influence that comes from empire, the economy or military might has diminished over decades, but the UK has a reputation for fairness, justice, the rule of law and human rights, which it thinks that it can use in foreign policy to influence countries that face challenges. To walk away from ECHR would completely and utterly diminish the UK’s moral authority in that regard. The practical implications for the constitution and the law are one aspect of the issue, but the important point is about the message on what we stand for.

In the short time since devolution, Scotland has built up a reputation in the context of human rights in a variety of areas, not least in relation to how we implement a human rights-based approach. For example, in the summer we hosted an event on the human rights action plan at Scotland house in Brussels, at which we brought together experts from across Europe who are interested in what we do and how we do it.

What is happening in the UK is counter to the practicalities of the constitutional set-up of the Scottish Parliament and potentially other areas. This committee will be interested in taking evidence from ministers, of course, and Roseanna Cunningham has taken a lead on the matter, but I am not sure what the position is in relation to a committee taking evidence from the Parliament itself. However, there is an issue for the Presiding Officer and this place, which needs to be identified.

We are taking the issue seriously and we are communicating our view to the UK Government. The subject will be raised with the UK Government on Monday. We should look at the two dimensions of the issue that I talked about. Given that the committee’s remit includes external affairs, maybe it should consider the issue in the context of not just policy making in devolved areas but the reputational aspects and the implications for Scotland and for the rest of the UK. I am thinking about, for example, accession countries that are looking to reach the bar that has been set on human rights, which is important.

The idea that the UK would be the first country in the world to take a step backwards on human rights is incomprehensible to me. Perhaps I should finish there before I get too effusive in expressing my concern.

European and External Relations Committee 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Fiona Hyslop

An interesting perspective is to consider whether the UK Government thinks that the convention is a good thing in a European context and whether its position in that regard is consistent with its position internally. There is an opportunity to try to shape things. I am not sure that I would encourage the UK Government to think about that, although you are right to ask the question.

Through the JMC, we have an opportunity to influence what comes up on council agendas. We would want an extension of the convention’s application, but that might not be the UK’s position, which takes me back to the point about devolution being about advancing a case and a cause. If the UK turns round and says, “No, we will veto accession,” that just shows the limitations on what we can do. However, the UK Government can speak for itself and I do not want to get into territory in which I speak for it.


European and External Relations Committee 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Fiona Hyslop

We have not only a role to play but a duty to speak out. Any parliamentarian or member of any institution should, if they feel strongly about issues, speak out about them. In many ways, human rights know no borders—that is the whole point of the humanitarian aspect. Although in terms of jurisdictions, laws and so on the borders are national, the concept of human rights is absolutely international.

We can look at the issue in different ways. On our influence and what we can do, the committee has roles in that regard. I liaise with UK institutions and the UK Government. We will do that internally, Government-to-Government, in our discussions with the UK; we can also do that directly, as we have done in relation to the European Union.

I have been talking about how we are going to refresh our action plan. One of the four pillars is justice and home affairs, and Hanzala Malik’s points on human rights, immigration and so on are areas that have traditionally been within that ambit. When it comes to the agenda for ourselves, the UK and the European Union, we must look at the interplay between immigration, human rights and, indeed, external affairs and security and stability in the world.

Too much of the immigration agenda in the UK has been very inward looking and, for some parties, it has involved playing to prejudices. Some of the immigration issues are within Europe. They relate to the practicalities of borders, whether that is to do with the Schengen agreement or the common travel area in the UK and Ireland.

However, we also have to think about the wider issue, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, of people coming to the continent and the implications of instability, whether that is environmental instability as a result of climate change, which is impacting on the southern borders considerably, or the extensive military conflicts. All those things require a long-term strategic approach. The European Union is finding its feet—actually, to rephrase that, it has now established its role and responsibilities through the European External Action Service. One of the challenges for the Italian presidency in setting out the framework and for the Commission will be dealing with the interplay between all those issues.

We must address some of the issues of movement of people, energy security and climate change—we cannot just have an immediate, short-term impact. On how we get into some of those issues, climate change is an issue on which Scotland has built up a reputation, has expertise and is assisting, although I do not know who the European rapporteur is on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. The movement of people that is likely to happen if we do not tackle climate change—we will have environmental refugees rather than the economic refugees that we have now—is a big long-term issue for us.

We also have to consider the fact that Europe is an ageing continent. Italy is slightly different in that it has a young population, but the vast majority of Europe has an ageing population. We need to consider what that means in terms of having people of working age who can contribute through tax. Where will they come from and what will that look like?

There is a point about the interplay in the wider agenda between external affairs issues and justice and home affairs issues. My concern is that, although there has been progress—it was good to see the joint agreement on visas between the Irish and UK Governments last week—the UK’s opportunity to influence and its credibility will be diminished if it ends up with a reactionary immigration policy rather than a long-term strategic approach. That also applies to human rights and the interplay between the two issues. The UK’s voice of authority will be diminished, so the issue is not just about the practical policies that it might influence.

Therefore, our role should not just be as bystanders. We should not say that, just because the result of the referendum was no we should somehow retreat into a box of limited devolution. We have already established a base camp through our influence on climate change, and the fact that we have a separate justice system means that we have direct links in relation to JHA issues. The committee, too, has built up a reputation, not least through the work of the convener on trafficking, human rights and that wider agenda.

We have an authority in relation to our devolved competencies on justice and climate change and in relation to the humanitarian impact of economic and environmental issues. We are building up authority through experience and expertise, and we should do that. If that means being a voice of conscience within the UK, we can do that, but I hope that we can influence the EU and its developments, too. There should not be a limit on our ambitions, although we should take a targeted approach and consider where we can influence and why. We should not expect to replicate all the UK services, but there are clear agendas on which we can have influence, whether that is justice and home affairs, as a result of our separate legal system, climate change or the strategic thinking on the future economic wealth and stability, environmental security and energy security of the continent of Europe. That means that we have to think like Europeans. I believe that Scots do think like Europeans, perhaps more so than people elsewhere. We have to take on that obligation. It is not just my obligation—it is for the Parliament and the committee, too.

European and External Relations Committee 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Fiona Hyslop

It is the authority to encourage other countries to behave in a way that complies with human rights. How on earth can we lecture other countries—although I am not sure that lecturing is the way to influence them—or, rather, encourage them to take a position when we are walking away from human rights?

Turkey is very important. It offers many opportunities; it is strategic in many ways, and not just geopolitically in the current situation. We can look at the high economic growth rates that it has experienced recently. There are a lot of common business interests between Turkey and Scotland—not least in investment in financial services and other areas. We have seen the success of Turkish Airlines at Edinburgh airport. The Turkish Government has opened a consulate here to encourage business.

However, we know that when it comes to the accession process, Turkey’s application to join the EU and its desire to be part of the EU, Turkey will need to overcome a number of hurdles. One recurring issue is human rights. I met the Turkish president when he arrived—last summer, I think—for meetings with the Turkish community and interests here, and people asked, “Did you raise the issue of human rights?” Opposition members frequently pursue that agenda in the Parliament. A state’s moral authority to influence good practice on human rights, whether in Turkey or elsewhere, is diminished if the state—that is the UK—walks away from human rights.

Early after taking on my ministerial responsibilities in this area, I was involved in helping to finance and pay for trade unionists, businesspeople and representatives of the third sector in Turkey to come to understand better the European institutions and how they can develop. I am positive about that agenda. However, along with rights come responsibilities, and human rights are a responsibility.

The matter should not be seen in the context of narrow case law on individual issues, because the high-profile cases that the UK cites—the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs is better placed to speak on the matter—are a very small percentage of the overall issues. The bottom line is that playing politics with human rights in the short term could have serious long-term consequences for the UK and its influence around the world.

European and External Relations Committee 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Fiona Hyslop

The Government’s economic strategy has a number of strands. Productivity and participation in the workplace form one; another is ensuring that we have a sufficient working-age population to pay taxes so that, when I eventually get to the stage of having a zimmer, somebody can pay for my healthcare and all the rest of it.

It is important to have the working-age population contributing. Some myths go about, but studies show that the net contribution that migrants—particularly from Europe—make to this country through their contribution in taxes is quite considerable. We need to surface that information more.

There are two ways to tackle the issue. One is to ensure that there are good-quality jobs and services, so that the young people of Scotland can remain here if they choose. It is significant that, I think, about 37,000 of the approximately 70,000 emigrants from Scotland are under 30. I will correct those numbers if I have got them wrong.

That is a great opportunity and it is fine, unless people leave because they have to. Part of the approach to the issue of our working-age population is to ensure that we keep our brightest and our best, but there are other ways of doing that, such as the post-study work visa for the brightest and best of the world who are coming here.


Let us remember that there is an interplay of policies. I am proud to have been the minister who took through the legislation to abolish tuition fees, but let us consider what that means. Not only have we managed to save £1 billion for Scottish students, but we have attracted students from elsewhere. That is a potential cost, but the Scottish Government’s investment in our universities has ensured that they have maintained their investment levels, so the change has not been to their detriment. For every international student who comes here, there are mums, dads and visitors who will come and spend money while they are here, so there is an economic benefit from international students.

We have to tackle the issue of getting the brightest and best to stay here. Perhaps the Smith commission could look at what we can do in immigration. Under Jack McConnell’s Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive, we had the idea of the differentiated competitive edge, so we could think about the issue in that context.

The wider movement should be seen in the context of Europe as a whole. Europe has great strengths, but if its economic growth is not one of them—population is a factor in economic growth—that will be a challenge for us. We need to think about what that means. If it means that migration to Scotland needs to go from 22,000 to 24,000 to maintain the working-age population contribution, we can do that either by recalibrating the 2,000 who leave or by identifying 2,000 who might come annually to help our economy.

In industries such as energy and life sciences, which are key new sectors for the world, we can be at the leading edge, and that is where it is important to develop relationships that allow us to attract the brightest and the best and to keep them by making Scotland more attractive to them. There is an interplay between all those issues.

I am also interested in developing diaspora policy, both outward and inward. Jimmy Deenihan, who was previously the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in Ireland, has now been appointed as a specifically tasked diaspora minister in the Taoiseach’s office. I am keen to learn more about what Ireland does and about mobilising our interests externally around the world. Yesterday, I met members of the Ukrainian community, and I am conscious of the importance of working with strong communities in Scotland such as the Ukrainian and Polish communities to recognise not just the waves of historical immigration but the current talent that is coming here with the new Europeans.

European and External Relations Committee 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Fiona Hyslop

We are keen on looking at the funding streams for creative Europe and the opportunities that that presents. Digital aspects are important and, in our “Nordic Baltic Policy Statement” and on my recent visits to Nordic countries, we have explored how we can work together and what we can do. That also relates to film, as a lot of film production is co-production. We will look at how we can stimulate that market for jobs and services by working with different countries in an area in which we have expertise. I am keen to progress that, and I have been discussing that with other countries.

I had not realised it, but apparently Scotland is second only to France for cinema attendance per head of population, although we are not well served by cinemas in lots of parts of Scotland. However, we can do things with digital technology. I was recently at the community cinema in Thurso, which has been using digital streaming—a technology that allows access to the best of culture, whether from Paris or Berlin or from Edinburgh or Thurso, which can be beamed out into other areas. I heard from people in Thurso about the reach and range that they can achieve.

Some countries—particularly Nordic countries—use such technology not only for health services in rural and remote areas but for entertainment and that sort of cultural life, which is important. There is something interesting in that, and I am looking into what we can do. I cannot tell you definite plans now, but there are great opportunities because of our areas of expertise.

Many countries—particularly the Baltic countries, such as Lithuania—are interested in our creative industries and how we use and promote them. The UK has been happy for us to lead on that on the UK’s behalf because of our experience. That goes back to the representation that we have because of our areas of expertise. The creative industries, fishing, climate change and so on are key areas in which we have strengths and, within the constitutional settlement, we should be able to lead on them on behalf not only of Scotland but of the UK. Digital technology is another of those areas. As you know, our games industry is strong, and the growing interplay between digital and film in a digital world gives us great opportunities.

To go back to the idea of linking up all the policies, if we are to internationalise our export base for our SMEs, we will have to operate on a digital basis for international promotion and exporting. That means that we must grow a country of digitally literate students who can influence exporting opportunities, for example. All the areas are connected, but I am particularly interested in that one.

At the culture summit, 25 countries were represented. Not all of them were from Europe, because we wanted to ensure that the summit was wider than that and featured people from the six continents. That is a good platform on which to showcase our reputation and experience and to engage in an exchange about the issues. We are doing that, particularly with the Baltic countries, as a result of the summit.

European and External Relations Committee 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
Fiona Hyslop

I am aware of the issue and know that the Government is taking it seriously. However, because I am neither the transport minister nor the enterprise minister, I am not in a position to give you an immediate response.

All of us—we in the Government and you as a local member—have a responsibility not to cause fear or concern. We need to resolve the issues where we can. I assure you that the Government will seek to do whatever it can, within its powers, to address the issue. I hope that we can all work together collectively to ensure that there is a positive resolution.

Vote DetailMSP VoteResult

S4M-11123 Joe FitzPatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau: Business Motion—That the Parliament
>> Show more

S4M-11114.2 Kenny MacAskill: Policing—As an amendment to motion S4M-11114 in the name of Graeme Pear
>> Show more

S4M-11114 Graeme Pearson: Policing—That the Parliament acknowledges that policing in Scotland contin
>> Show more

S4M-11116.1.1 Patrick Harvie: Scotland’s Future—As an amendment to amendment S4M-11116.1 in the name
>> Show more

S4M-11116.1 Nicola Sturgeon: Scotland’s Future—As an amendment to motion S4M-11116 in the name of Jo
>> Show more

S4M-11116 Johann Lamont: Scotland’s Future—That the Parliament recognises the result of the independ
>> Show more

Amendment 61 moved by Elaine Murray on motion S4M-11101 Kenny MacAskill: Courts Reform (Scotland) Bi
>> Show more

Amendment 62 moved by Margaret Mitchell on motion S4M-11101 Kenny MacAskill: Courts Reform (Scotland
>> Show more

Amendment 63 moved by Margaret Mitchell on motion S4M-11101 Kenny MacAskill: Courts Reform (Scotland
>> Show more

Amendment 64 moved by Margaret Mitchell on motion S4M-11101 Kenny MacAskill: Courts Reform (Scotland
>> Show more

Search for other Motions lodged by Fiona Hyslop
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Motion S4M-10784: Fiona Hyslop, Linlithgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 12/08/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10644: Fiona Hyslop, Linlithgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 23/07/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10371: Fiona Hyslop, Linlithgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 17/06/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10033: Fiona Hyslop, Linlithgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 12/05/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09748: Fiona Hyslop, Linlithgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/04/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-08461: Fiona Hyslop, Linlithgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 02/12/2013 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-08254: Fiona Hyslop, Linlithgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/11/2013 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-07622: Fiona Hyslop, Linlithgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 09/09/2013 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-06388: Fiona Hyslop, Linlithgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 29/04/2013 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-04970: Fiona Hyslop, Linlithgow, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 26/11/2012 Show Full Motion >>
This Member currently holds a ministerial post. First Minister and Ministers cannot ask the Government questions which is why no recent questions are displaying here. Please use the full search to find details of previous questions by this Member.
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Question S2W-32214: Fiona Hyslop, Lothians, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 05/03/2007 Show Full Question >>
Question S2W-31614: Fiona Hyslop, Lothians, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 01/02/2007 Show Full Question >>
Question S2W-31458: Fiona Hyslop, Lothians, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 26/01/2007 Show Full Question >>
Question S2W-31322: Fiona Hyslop, Lothians, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 23/01/2007 Show Full Question >>
Question S2W-31323: Fiona Hyslop, Lothians, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 23/01/2007 Show Full Question >>
Question S2O-11714: Fiona Hyslop, Lothians, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 10/01/2007 Show Full Question >>
Question S2W-30689: Fiona Hyslop, Lothians, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 19/12/2006 Show Full Question >>
Question S2W-30688: Fiona Hyslop, Lothians, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 19/12/2006 Show Full Question >>
Question S2W-30171: Fiona Hyslop, Lothians, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 24/11/2006 Show Full Question >>
Question S2W-30170: Fiona Hyslop, Lothians, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 24/11/2006 Show Full Question >>

Further information

Email our Public Information Service for more information.