Joe FitzPatrick MSP

Welcome to Joe FitzPatrick MSP's biography pages

Joe FitzPatrick MSP

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

  • Member for: Dundee City West
  • Region: North East Scotland
  • Party: Scottish National Party

Joe is a member of the following Committees:

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

Parliamentary Activities

Search for other Speeches made by The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Joe FitzPatrick)

Meeting of the Parliament 06 November 2014 : Thursday, November 06, 2014
Joe FitzPatrick

Mr Findlay will, of course, be aware that I will not discuss the Government’s legislative programme here. However, he will be aware of what standing orders say and of our intentions as previously stated. That remains the position.

We are in a better place than I could ever have imagined that we could get to in managing to take forward proposals on the issue in a way that brings on board not only all members of the Parliament, but potentially people outwith the Parliament—lobbyists and other groups—on both sides of the argument. The committee’s work has been hugely helpful in allowing us to progress that, and I would be failing in my duty to the Parliament if I were not prepared to consider the committee’s deliberations before we move any further forward.

Paul Martin kicked off with some very important points. His first point was about access to this place, which is crucial. We are all extremely proud of the fact that the public see the Parliament as being open and accessible. It is clear that we must find a way to protect that as we move forward.

Paul Martin talked about how that feeling has intensified as a result of the referendum, because more people now have an interest in policy making and politics. We therefore have a duty to ensure that we make access easier. I do not see why, at the same time, we cannot find ways to make it more transparent, too.

The regulation of former ministers was another issue that Paul Martin mentioned. I guess that we sometimes forget to talk about the robustness of the framework that we already have. It was helpful that the committee’s convener gave us an outline of the regulations that are in place. We have some extremely robust regulations in place, and we should maybe talk about them more often. The debate has provided a good opportunity for us to do that.

In summarising the powerful arguments on both sides of the debate that were made in evidence, Cameron Buchanan neatly demonstrated the task that faces the committee. None of us should underestimate the scale of that task, which will involve pulling together what sometimes appear to be very divergent views and opinions. The committee will have a job to do in weighing up those competing arguments, but I think that its members are all up to the task. They have certainly shown their ability to do that going forward.

Fiona McLeod raised the recurring question of what lobbying is and said that a register might underline the Parliament’s openness and accessibility. That echoes the first of the Government’s key principles. Although we want to find a way of increasing transparency, we must maintain the openness that the Parliament is so proud of, which Paul Martin mentioned.

George Adam reiterated a point that I made in my opening speech, which is that we must not go down the road that the UK Government went down in its legislation. That is a very good point. Mr Findlay made it clear that his proposals were nothing like those that were advanced in the UK Government’s legislation. I put it on record that, if they had been, we would not have expressed any intention to go forward with them. The UK Government turned the clock back and did exactly the wrong things for openness, transparency and the ability to participate. Its legislation was progressed in a highly partisan way, and calls for it to be repealed have already been made by members of all parties down south, as well as by external organisations.

George Adam mentioned Susan Deacon’s perspective on this very complex topic. I agree with him. Susan Deacon’s contributions were very well thought out and very useful for us in taking the issue forward.

I put on record my thanks to Jamie Hepburn’s wife for all her work. A number of members have pointed out that we in the Parliament do not see lobbying as a dirty word in the way that it is perhaps seen elsewhere. Lobbying is hugely useful to us, as the Holyrood article in January this year indicated. We simply could not do our job without the assistance of the many organisations that help us to come to conclusions. Jamie Hepburn’s point about how we can perhaps make the process more transparent might be helpful. It might also help organisations. If a member has worked with the RSPB, for instance, surely it is in the RSPB’s interests that, if that ends up with an amendment being lodged, that is somehow properly recorded. That is something positive. We should never see those things as not being positive.

At the start, I mentioned three very important principles. I want to close with those principles. If we can stick to the principles that guide the Government’s thinking, we will find a way to take legislation forward in the best possible way for the Parliament.

First, we must not erode the Parliament’s principles of openness, ease of access and accountability.

Secondly, any proposed measures must complement our existing frameworks without compromising their effective operation.

Thirdly, any solution must be proportionate, simple in its operation and able to command broad support within and outwith our Parliament.

I thank members for the debate, which has been really useful. I am sure that the committee will carefully deliberate on the points that have been made, and the convener’s decision to proactively publish his engagements on his website will be helpful to all of us.



Meeting of the Parliament 06 November 2014 : Thursday, November 06, 2014
Joe FitzPatrick

I thank all members who are in the chamber. It has been a really good debate. There is much more common ground than there is division across the chamber, which is certainly the approach that the Government hoped that we would be able to take.

I have found members’ speeches interesting and helpful. I am sure that the committee will be able to draw much from members’ comments. The speeches demonstrate that many issues that arise when we consider lobbying and transparency are complex.

Before I talk about some of those issues and about some of the other speeches, I will respond to Mr Findlay’s remarks. I had hoped to be able to let him intervene on my opening speech but did not realise at that point that we were becoming tight for time.

Let me be clear that it remains our intention to take the matter forward but it is a complex issue and the Government feels that it is right that the committee take the time to understand fully all the issues and that the Government then take time to consider the committee’s deliberations carefully before coming to a conclusion about how best to legislate.



Meeting of the Parliament 06 November 2014 : Thursday, November 06, 2014
Joe FitzPatrick

I raised those two very diverse perspectives in order to recognise the complexity of the task that the committee is undertaking.

We are mindful of and, collectively, welcome the strong sense of public engagement that currently exists in policy making in Scotland. That engagement is healthy, constructive and—thankfully—free from allegations of impropriety. That is the natural environment for this Parliament. We enjoy a positive climate that encourages participation, builds trust and, above all, helps to preserve the integrity of our institution. The outcomes of the committee’s inquiry must be taken forward in a way that protects and encourages the strong connection that we have with the people of Scotland.

Once again, I commend the committee for the way in which it is progressing these issues, and I look forward to a consensual outcome.



Meeting of the Parliament 06 November 2014 : Thursday, November 06, 2014
Joe FitzPatrick

I have a quotation to read out from Mr Allan. After I have done that and finished my second example, I will give way to Mr Findlay.

Mr Allan said that that

“would bring a great deal of credibility while leaving you with flexibility when things were going wrong. There is something to be said for that.”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 13 March 2014; c 1000.]

Others—including Mr Findlay—provided a different perspective during evidence sessions. Alexandra Runswick from Unlock Democracy commented that the Parliament should act now, in a calm climate, before there is a vicious circle of scandals followed by inquiries. Dr William Dinan from Spinwatch made the point that although publishing MSPs’ diaries would be helpful, it in itself would not achieve the overall aim of transparency. He added that, in his view, any mechanism ought to be statutory, as a voluntary system would not work. Tamasin Cave from the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency considered that financial disclosure was a key point, as well as capturing lobbying activity.



Meeting of the Parliament 06 November 2014 : Thursday, November 06, 2014
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Joe FitzPatrick)

I thank the convener of the committee for his thoughtful opening remarks and for the commendable efforts that he made, given the challenges with his voice today. I also thank the entire Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for bringing the issue to the chamber today.

It is appropriate at this stage to put on record the Government’s support for the committee’s inquiry. The committee’s work is central to ensuring that we find a consensual way forward.

The inquiry is being conducted in a thorough and inclusive way, hearing from a wide range of stakeholders, whose views will be vital in ensuring that Parliament can take forward reform on a balanced and proportionate basis.

For the Government’s part, I have also met several stakeholder organisations, all of which I think subsequently gave evidence to the committee.

Today’s chamber debate now allows individual MSPs to contribute to and inform the committee’s work. Rather than following the usual format, where the chamber debates a committee’s final conclusions, the SPPA committee appears to be very much in listening mode today. That is to be welcomed, as is the interactive debate happening concurrently on social media. I hope that the Government comms will be able to join in as I speak.

Parliament has always led the way on matters relevant to its own affairs, and lobbying is no exception. Members will be keenly anticipating the committee’s final report, but it is important that the committee should be given the time and space to get it right.

In the Government’s view, any reforms to lobbying practice should be proportionate, evidence based and able to command widespread support from both stakeholders and political parties.

From the outset, the Government has been very clear that lobbying is a subject on which Parliament should assume a central role. That was the case when the session 1 Standards Committee conducted a review into lobbying in 2002, and it remains the case now.

The current committee inquiry feels like a natural and consistent progression from that previous work, and it rightly maintains the Parliament’s central role in determining best practice. I have no doubt that its findings will be carefully thought through, collaborative and consensual, which will be helped in part by this debate.

I am sure that we all agree that improving public confidence in Parliament is a consensus issue, the responsibility for which is shared by us all. It follows that such matters should not be considered on a party-political basis or indeed in a vacuum. Issues of probity should command a balanced, reasoned and consensual approach, which is what this Parliament has adopted since 1999.

That is of course in stark contrast to the United Kingdom Government’s approach. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 shows what can go wrong when party politics are applied to an issue of public confidence. The UK Government adopted a rushed and partisan approach, to the obvious detriment of the end product, which was roundly criticised.

We need to remember that the urgency of the UK legislation was caused by its coming in response to accusations made about the activities of elected representatives at Westminster. In Scotland, the context has thankfully been rather different. The driver here is not remedial action; the inquiry is part of an on-going process of ensuring that we take stock and consider whether improvements could be made to the transparency of lobbying.

As the convener said, analysing appropriate checks and balances in this complex area is a challenging task. Reforms must be necessary, be proportionate and achieve the aim of delivering increased transparency in lobbying activity. The committee’s aim has rightly been to proceed methodically, rather than quickly.

I make it clear that my speech does not seek to pre-empt the committee’s findings. However, I offer some thoughts on the Government’s underlying thinking that I hope the chamber will find useful.

I believe—and I hope that others agree—that lobbying plays an invaluable and necessary part in policy making. It should be viewed as a positive activity, consistent with the open and inclusive approach taken by the Government and the Parliament.

I noted with interest a survey in Holyrood magazine in January of this year, which concluded that four fifths of members find direct contact with external organisations useful in their day-to-day role. I fully concur with that view. It is important not only for members but for the Government.

With that in mind, the Government’s view is that three main policy principles should guide how we approach lobbying.

First, any erosion of the Parliament’s principles of openness, ease of access and accountability must be avoided. Reforms should not restrict how stakeholders and members of the public engage in public policy issues.

Secondly, any proposed measures must complement the existing frameworks—for example, the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament”, the Scottish ministerial code and standing orders—without compromising their effective operation. Any proposed measures must be clear and transparent in their purpose and operation.

Thirdly, any solution must be proportionate, simple in its operation and able to command broad support within and outwith the Parliament.

If we follow those principles, we can reach a balanced, well-rounded conclusion that we can all stand behind.

The convener has already mentioned the summary of evidence that the committee has published. That input from a wide range of stakeholders has proved valuable in helping to identify practical ways to enhance public transparency in lobbying activity.

Everyone giving evidence was clear that there was no problem with probity. Existing systems in Scotland to govern the probity of MSPs have not been criticised. Standing orders, the MSP code of conduct and the ministerial code are all seen to be robust. Instead, transparency is the area where there might be room for improvement. Evidence has also helped to tease out what information could help the public to understand the connections between lobbyists and MSPs.

The question now is how we can further improve on our existing systems and achieve an even greater level of transparency in respect of lobbying and parliamentary activity in general. That involves analysing and identifying where there are gaps in the systems and how those could be addressed.

A common theme was the value and character of statutory measures—for example, who should be covered by a register of lobbyists and what additional information it should contain.

I was also interested by the frequent references to non-statutory measures and how they might contribute to an overall package to improve the transparency of our Parliament. The publication of MSPs’ meetings with outside interest groups was probably the most repeated example of that.

It is helpful that the convener has taken the time to show what that might look like by publishing his agenda on his website. Some time ago, the Government decided to do likewise, and members can see what that looks like by searching for “engagements” on the Scottish Government’s website.

An important question is how our existing robust systems can be further improved. I look forward to hearing what others have to say on those points.

I will highlight just two of the many interesting perspectives that were raised during the committee’s oral evidence sessions.

The first is that of Stuart Allan, who was the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life. Mr Allan confirmed that, in his role, he had encountered no evidence of lobbying impropriety in Scotland. Therefore, he did not consider there to be any justification for legislating to establish a Scottish lobbying register. He also suggested that increased transparency could instead be delivered through amendments to surrounding frameworks, which he considered to be robust. As I indicated earlier, those frameworks include the code of conduct for MSPs, the ministerial code and the civil service code.

Mr Allan believed that there was scope to give consideration to the enhancement of voluntary registration schemes. In his view, the potential existed for the Parliament to engage with the lobbying industry to establish a code of conduct.



Meeting of the Parliament 05 November 2014 : Wednesday, November 05, 2014
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Joe FitzPatrick)

Before I move the business motion, I point out that it contains some important business. Next Tuesday, we will discuss human rights; on Wednesday, we will discuss welfare benefits for people living with disabilities; and, on Thursday, we will have an important debate on progressive workplace policies to boost productivity, growth and jobs, on which Ms Constance will lead.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees the following programme of business—

Tuesday 11 November 2014

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

followed by Ministerial Statement: Child Protection

followed by Scottish Government Debate: Human Rights

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Wednesday 12 November 2014

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions
Rural Affairs, Food and the Environment;
Justice and the Law Officers

followed by Scottish Government Debate: Welfare Benefits for People Living with Disabilities

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 13 November 2014

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Questions

followed by Scottish Government Debate: Progressive Workplace Policies to Boost Productivity, Growth and Jobs

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

Tuesday 18 November 2014

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

followed by Scottish Government Business

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Wednesday 19 November 2014

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions
Health and Wellbeing

followed by Scottish Government Business

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 20 November 2014

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Scottish Government Business

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time



Meeting of the Parliament 09 October 2014 : Thursday, October 09, 2014
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Joe FitzPatrick)

I, too, congratulate Christina McKelvie and thank her for bringing such an important and timely debate to the chamber.

The referendum was a remarkable demonstration of democracy at its best, and I think that this afternoon’s debate has demonstrated this chamber at its best, too. Members have made impassioned speeches recalling young people’s engagement and energy and their considered contributions to the debate on Scotland’s future. Clare Adamson highlighted how the youth theatre was such a great reflection of our young people, and Joan McAlpine very importantly praised the role played by schools in ensuring that our young people had the information that they required to take part in what Hanzala Malik called a passionate debate.

It was right for Christina McKelvie to start off by thanking our ambitious young people who, by and large, ensured that we managed to get votes for 16-year-olds in the referendum. However, it was also important that she acknowledged those perhaps longer in the tooth who have been campaigning for votes at 16 for a very long time, some of whom are in the chamber this afternoon.

A lot has been said about the record-breaking turnout and unprecedented levels of engagement by the people of Scotland, but it is crucial that we continue to engage and enthuse them. We must not lose the momentum that was reflected in the substantial number of people who voted for the first time, around 109,000 of whom were 16 and 17-year-olds. That is a huge number of people.

The eighteenth of September was the first time that 16 and 17-year-olds were entitled to vote in a national poll. The SNP Government has had the policy for a long time. As Christina McKelvie said, we have always believed in extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and we have done that where we have the powers to do so. I know that that is the position of probably every member who is in the chamber and a large number of members, across the parties, who are not with us.

However, when the Government introduced the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill in 2013, there was not universal agreement on the principle of enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum. Members of the Scottish Parliament and, in particular, members of the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee should be proud of the way in which they scrutinised the Scottish Government’s proposals and of their constructive and pragmatic approach. That was the case for members of the committee and of the Parliament irrespective of where they stood on the principle of the franchise. Members ensured that, if it was going to happen, we would do it properly and safely and we devised a workable system for safely extending the franchise.

It is a measure of the strength of those proposals and the Parliament’s work that the arrangements received broad support across the political spectrum and among key stakeholders such as child protection groups and electoral administrators, both before and after the referendum. As I said at the time, not everyone agreed with the principles. Looking back, like Kezia Dugdale, I find it hard to believe that the measure was ever viewed as controversial, but it was. It has been a pleasure to witness the democratic engagement of our young people, who were proud to claim the right to register their vote on a question about the future of their country. The measure is no longer controversial.

Marco Biagi mentioned that, because the arrangements worked to such good effect, they provide us with a template for extending the franchise not just in Scotland but elsewhere in the UK and maybe in other jurisdictions that might be looking at how things worked in Scotland. I was particularly pleased to hear John Lamont’s support for extending the franchise for all elections.

The Scottish Parliament already has a range of powers with regard to local government elections, which we have used to good effect, I think. However, Westminster retains responsibility for the franchise for and the method of electing members to the Scottish Parliament and members’ length of tenure. Sections 1 to 3 of the Scotland Act 2012 will devolve some but not full responsibility for the administration of those elections. Those sections will be commenced as soon as possible to ensure that we can prepare for the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016. However, even after the commencement of those sections, the Scottish Parliament will still be without key powers in relation to the election of its members. To be clear, without powers that are additional to those that will be devolved by the Scotland Act 2012, we cannot legislate to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the elections for the Parliament in May 2016 or the local elections in 2017. I hope colleagues will strongly agree that the Parliament must have those powers.

The referendum and its underpinning legislation were made in Scotland and there is no reason why that should not be the case for all elections in future. With the Scottish elections just 20 months away, the Government has written to the UK Government requesting as a matter of urgency the devolution of the remaining responsibilities for elections to the Scottish Parliament and local elections in Scotland. We have also urged the UK Government to introduce legislation at Westminster to lower the voting age for its elections—that resonates with John Lamont’s comments.

In the run-up to the referendum, I was privileged to join Cabinet colleagues at a number of events to engage thousands of people on our proposals for Scotland’s future. One of those events was specifically designed to allow us to interact with and listen to our young people. It was held in the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre in Glasgow and was jointly organised with the Scottish Youth Parliament, Young Scot and YouthLink Scotland, supported by other youth organisations.

A variety of subjects were discussed, including education, the constitution, defence, young carers, the environment and much more. For me, one question that a very articulate young woman put to me stood out. Very reasonably, she asked whether 16 and 17-year-olds would get to vote in the elections to the Scottish Parliament in 2016, which at the time I hoped would be for the first independent Scottish Parliament. I answered that, in line with SNP policy, an SNP Government in an independent Scotland would legislate to reduce the voting age to 16 for all elections. “But what about the election in May 2016?” was her retort. “You can’t give us the vote then take it back,” she said. “That would be wrong.” She was absolutely right. It will not be an election for an independent Scotland, but it would be a travesty if we cannot find a way to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are enfranchised to vote in that election.

Scotland’s young people have amply demonstrated their enthusiasm, engagement and willingness to participate in our democratic processes. They have not taken their responsibility lightly and neither should we. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the UK Government will take proper note of the positive experiences that we have had here in Scotland, so that we can ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds are able to vote in all future elections.

13:15 Meeting suspended.  14:30 On resuming—  

Meeting of the Parliament 08 October 2014 : Wednesday, October 08, 2014
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Joe FitzPatrick)

We are not going to get back that couple of minutes. Paul Martin has offered a complete work of fiction; let me offer the chamber some facts.

First, the programme for government’s timing will see all bills progressing to the same timescale as if the programme had been introduced on the first week back after summer recess. There will be no material difference to the timetable of our legislation programme.

Secondly, the Scottish Government continues to govern as it has always done: effectively and in the interests of the people of Scotland.

I thank Paul Martin for giving me the opportunity to highlight just some of our recent achievements. Tomorrow, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, will publish our budget, focusing on tackling inequality and economic growth.

On Monday, Scottish Water announced its £3.5 billion infrastructure investment programme, which will secure work to support some 5,000 construction jobs. Just last month, we introduced a bill to end the automatic early release of long-term prisoners. We are taking through legislation to control the use of air weapons. From January, free school meals will be introduced for primary 1 to 3—shamefully, the Labour Party voted against that proposal.

The people of Scotland are seeing through the Labour Party, which has betrayed its roots to work hand in glove with the Tory party in talking Scotland down. The people of Scotland prefer positivity, vision and aspiration to the Labour Party’s toxic brand of negativity, doom and despair. That is why the SNP has a 15-point lead over Labour in opinion polls and why the SNP has had more than 52,000 brand new members since the referendum. What is crucial for the Labour Party is that our trade union group probably has more members than make up Scottish Labour’s entire membership.

That is why the people of Scotland will continue to put their trust in this party of government, which continues to discharge its duties in the best interests of the people of Scotland.



Meeting of the Parliament 24 September 2014 : Wednesday, September 24, 2014
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Joe FitzPatrick)

I can confirm that Mr Swinney will provide in his closing speech the information that Mr Carlaw seeks.



Meeting of the Parliament 06 August 2014 : Wednesday, August 06, 2014
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Joe FitzPatrick) Will the member take an intervention?

Vote DetailMSP VoteResult

Selection of the Parliament's Nominee for First Minister
Not VotedCarried

Selection of the Parliament's Nominee for First Minister
YesCarried

Selection of the Parliament's Nominee for First Minister
Not VotedCarried

S4M-11567.2 Margaret Mitchell: Lowering the Drink Drive Limit—As an amendment to motion S4M-11567 in
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11507.1 Cameron Buchanan: Progressive Workplace Policies to Boost Productivity, Growth and Jobs—
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11507 Angela Constance: Progressive Workplace Policies to Boost Productivity, Growth and Jobs—Th
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11494.3 Jackie Baillie: Welfare Benefits for People Living with Disabilities—As an amendment to
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11494.2 Alex Johnstone: Welfare Benefits for People Living with Disabilities—As an amendment to
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11494 Margaret Burgess: Welfare Benefits for People Living with Disabilities—That the Parliament
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11484.1 Jackson Carlaw: Human Rights—As an amendment to motion S4M-11484 in the name of Roseanna
>> Show more
NoDefeated

Search for other Motions lodged by Joe FitzPatrick
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Motion S4M-11739: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, On Behalf of Parliamentary Bureau, Date Lodged: 27/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11738: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, On Behalf of Parliamentary Bureau, Date Lodged: 27/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11690: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, On Behalf of Parliamentary Bureau, Date Lodged: 25/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11689: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, On Behalf of Parliamentary Bureau, Date Lodged: 25/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11688: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, On Behalf of Parliamentary Bureau, Date Lodged: 25/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11686: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, On Behalf of Parliamentary Bureau, Date Lodged: 25/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11685: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, On Behalf of Parliamentary Bureau, Date Lodged: 25/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11684: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, On Behalf of Parliamentary Bureau, Date Lodged: 25/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11683: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, On Behalf of Parliamentary Bureau, Date Lodged: 25/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11682: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, On Behalf of Parliamentary Bureau, Date Lodged: 25/11/2014 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 S4F-00804: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 25/06/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4F-00742: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 31/05/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-01042: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/05/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4F-00653: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 02/05/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-00919: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 18/04/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4F-00387: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 09/01/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-00537: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 07/12/2011 Show Full Question >>
Question S4F-00325: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 05/12/2011 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-00500: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 30/11/2011 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-00470: Joe FitzPatrick, Dundee City West, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 23/11/2011 Show Full Question >>

Further information

Email our Public Information Service for more information.