Margaret Burgess MSP

Welcome to Margaret Burgess MSP's biography pages

Margaret Burgess MSP

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

  • Member for: Cunninghame South
  • Region: West Scotland
  • Party: Scottish National Party

Margaret is a member of the following Committees:

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

Parliamentary Activities

Search for other Speeches made by Margaret Burgess

Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2014 : Thursday, December 18, 2014
Margaret Burgess

No, I do not accept that we are not building resilience in many of the people who get goods. They get an opportunity. They are very vulnerable people. There have been stories of people going with a support worker or an organisation to choose their own goods and pick a colour scheme. Goods are delivered to their home and they have windows measured for curtains. A full service is provided. For very vulnerable people, just taking part in that exercise, which they might never have done before, helps.

The goods allow many local authorities to stretch the fund further. That must be looked at, as well.

The Scottish welfare fund has flexibility in local authority areas. I am not saying that it is perfect yet. We can work on that, but that flexibility should remain.

We listened to the concerns about sanctions and changed the guidance on the Scottish welfare fund to make it clear that an application by someone who has been sanctioned by the DWP should be considered the same as any other application.

We are doing what we can to ensure that a vital safety net remains in place, but we recognise that no single organisation or area of Government can own Scotland’s overall response to the UK Government’s welfare reform programme. That is why we are working closely with all our partners to ensure that we do the best with our existing resources to help those who are affected. We also know that the programme puts significant pressure on local government.

Finally, I want to say a bit about the Smith commission. I make it absolutely clear in response to what Richard Simpson said that the Scottish Government will work with our stakeholders and the people of Scotland to make the very best use of any powers that come to the Parliament. I accept that they are not the powers that we wanted but, whatever powers come to the Parliament, the Government will work closely with civic Scotland and our stakeholders and across the chamber to ensure that the people of Scotland get the best benefit from them.



Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2014 : Thursday, December 18, 2014
Margaret Burgess

During the debate, it has been clear that members have a real understanding of how the welfare reforms are affecting people in all our communities. The message that we should be sending out to people is that we know what impact the process is having on them.

There has been a lot of talk about the sanctions regime, which is punitive. Regardless of what has been said, it is not helping people back into work; the evidence does not show that it is. The illustration that Kevin Stewart gave highlighted the fact that the fear of sanctions is making it more difficult for people to get into work, because it is affecting their mental health, as Richard Simpson mentioned. People are not deliberately not complying with what the jobcentre is asking them to do. Many people do not understand what they are being asked to do and are not being supported in doing it. We must say so.

For me, the biggest regret as far as sanctions are concerned is that the Parliament still has no powers over them. We will not get any powers that will allow us to take action on sanctions and make things easier for our people. I would have liked full welfare powers to have been devolved to Scotland. That would have enabled us to adopt a much more proportionate approach to any so-called offence that a benefit claimant was alleged to have committed.

Food banks have been the subject of a great deal of discussion. It is clear that there is a link between the use of food banks and benefit reforms, benefit delays and low income. We will not be able to have any control over that, because we will not get the power to control the minimum wage or powers to grow our own economy. It is sad that that is not to happen. There was an opportunity for us to get such powers.

It is not just the Scottish Government that says that. Unison says it, too. Unison is extremely disappointed that, although the proposals include some positive elements, which I accept,

“the package as a whole falls short of our aspirations ... with particular regard to job creation, employment regulation, equalities and minimum wage.”

Those are all areas in which having the power to act would help to make the fairer society that we want. There is nothing in the new powers that will allow Scotland to create a new welfare state. There are certainly powers that we will use to benefit the people of Scotland, but they will not allow us to create a new welfare state, which is what most—75 per cent—of civic Scotland wanted.

A number of areas were mentioned in which it was claimed that the Scottish Government is not taking action. We are taking action. With the powers that we have, we are taking direct action to do what we can to support people and organisations throughout Scotland in what are very difficult times.

The Scottish welfare fund shows what we can achieve when we deliver welfare here in Scotland, and the most recent official statistics show that, between April 2013 and June 2014, more than 100,000 households in Scotland received at least one award. Those awards come to a total of around £38 million. By working alongside local authorities, we have been responsive to the needs of vulnerable people.

I want to pick up on a couple of points that Ken Macintosh made. He talked about people being paid in goods as opposed to cash. I repeat what I said during Tuesday’s debate: the bulk of the crisis grants that are paid out—which are paid out when people have no money for food, fuel or whatever—are paid out in cash. It is community care grants, when bigger items of expenditure are involved, that in many cases are paid in goods and, in some cases, vouchers. It was clear from the evidence that was given to the Welfare Reform Committee that many people and organisations appreciate receiving goods, and that they have a say in what goods are provided. Like other members, I agree that it would not be appropriate just to provide any goods, but when the goods are what people require and are chosen in discussion with the individual, in many cases people appreciate receiving goods.

We will also listen to what stakeholders say about the impact of the DWP sanctions.



Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2014 : Thursday, December 18, 2014
The Minister for Housing and Welfare (Margaret Burgess)

I am grateful to the members of the Welfare Reform Committee for their work over the past year. Their evidence sessions have allowed us to hear directly from people who work on the front line about the damaging impact of the UK Government’s welfare reforms and, which is important, from people who have been affected by the benefit changes, as Michael McMahon said. Because of that work, issues such as the rise in the use of food banks and the unfairness of the sanctions regime have been brought into the public domain.

As I have told Parliament, the Scottish Government is doing everything that it can to tackle the inequalities that continue to blight our society, and to ensure that everyone in Scotland has a chance to share in our country’s economic growth. However, our efforts are being hampered by the UK Government’s welfare reforms. We estimate that the price that Scotland has to pay as a result of the UK Government reforms is about £6 billion in the six years to 2015-16, which is £6 billion out of the pockets of some of our most vulnerable people.

On top of that, our analysis indicates that the cuts have a disproportionate impact on groups including disabled people and lone parents. More than £1 billion of the cuts will relate directly to children. If the cuts were not enough, the UK Government has also seen fit to introduce an oppressive sanctions regime that is clearly not fit for purpose, as Michael McMahon illustrated very well.

Last year in Scotland more than 54,000 individuals on jobseekers allowance were sanctioned, with some receiving multiple sanctions. In the year to June 2014, almost 2,000 people on employment support allowance—people who are ill or disabled—were also sanctioned. Our analysis has also shown that those who receive a sanction suffer on average a loss of income for four weeks amounting to about £270. That is a huge amount of money for people who are already battling to survive on low incomes.

In all too many cases, the first time that a person is aware that they have been sanctioned is when they go to the bank and find that they have no money. They sometimes do not know why. That is totally unacceptable.

Those cuts and punitive policies do absolutely nothing to tackle poverty and inequality. Instead, as the committee’s report highlights, sanctions are leading to huge rises in the number of people using food banks. More than 51,000 people visited Trussell Trust food banks between April and September this year and, worryingly, more than 15,000 of them were children. It is a disgrace that so many people in Scotland are unable to put food on the table.

That is why the Scottish Government set up the emergency food fund. The fund is providing more than £500,000 over two years to projects throughout the country that not only provide emergency food but help people to support each other in their communities. In that way, the projects build capacity to tackle the causes of food poverty and to develop solutions.

That is only part of the Scottish Government response to the UK Government’s welfare reform agenda. We are working closely with our partners to do all that we can within the powers and resources that we have to help people who are affected by the changes that have been imposed by Westminster. In our draft budget for 2015-16, we focus on three key objectives: to make Scotland a more prosperous country, to tackle inequalities, and to protect and reform public services.

To help us to tackle the poverty and inequality that blight our society, we will maintain our spending on mitigating welfare reform at about £296 million over a three-year period in order to ease the worst impacts of the reforms. We will also continue our efforts to stop in-work poverty, which include our commitment to the living wage. In addition, we will appoint an independent adviser on poverty and inequality who will engage with the people of Scotland to make recommendations to the Government on how we should collectively respond to the challenges and who will hold us to account on our performance.

We will also continue to lobby the UK Government for fairer welfare reform and take action to ensure that safeguards are in place for those who need them most. That will include acknowledging the link between welfare reform and the increased use of food banks, and quickly implementing the recommendations of the Oakley review on sanctions.

Because of issues such as those that we are discussing, the Scottish Government wanted full control over our social security system so that our ambition to move beyond mitigation could create a system that was much more suited to Scottish needs. The Smith commission has now made its recommendations. We are, of course, disappointed that it did not go as far as we or the majority of civic Scotland wanted. Organisations including the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, One Parent Families Scotland, Unison, the Institute of Economic Affairs, Children in Scotland and Engender have outlined exactly why the measures fall short of what is needed to tackle the big issues that are facing our country.

The Smith recommendations do not do enough to give us policy coherence in employment, the minimum wage and welfare so that we can tackle the long-term issues facing our country, and they deny us control over damaging policies such as sanctions. However, as the First Minister has made clear, we welcome all additional powers, and Parliament should be assured that we will do all that we can with those new powers to ensure that they benefit the people of Scotland.

Following the debate on the impact of the UK Government’s welfare reforms on disabled people, I wrote to the Minister of State for Disabled People asking for the roll-out of the personal independence payment—PIP—to be halted in Scotland. Now that the Smith commission has proposed that powers on disability come to the Scottish Parliament, it is all the more pressing that roll-out be stopped.

The Scottish Government is also clear that nobody should be adversely affected by the changes that the Smith commission proposes. Disability benefits should be devolved to the Parliament before the proposed £310 million budget cut comes into operation from the transfer of the disability living allowance to PIP. That should be a matter of good faith for the UK Government. Equally, those who receive benefits should not be penalised as a result of any changes that are introduced by the Scottish Government; rather, the financial rewards of any such measures should go to the individuals or families concerned.

Paragraph 55 of the Smith commission report is critical in that regard. It outlines that any new benefits or discretionary payments that are introduced by the Scottish Parliament must provide additional income for a person or family and must not result in an automatic offsetting reduction in their entitlement to other benefits. As members are aware, responsibility for universal credit has not been devolved, and we want to make it clear that any benefits that are created by this Parliament should not be deducted from anyone’s means-tested universal credit. All of us should unite behind that objective. The Scottish Government expects that recommendation of the Smith commission to be honoured in full.

I welcome the Welfare Reform Committee’s report, which has helped to inform the direction that we will take and to highlight the issues. Michael McMahon mentioned Denis Curran’s appearance at the committee and the number of hits the footage on YouTube of that has had. There is a real concern in Scotland about food banks, the people who use them and the benefit sanctions regime, and I think that the committee has done a lot to bring that into the public eye. I welcome that, so I am pleased to support the motion and the work of the committee in taking action on these issues.

15:06  

Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2014 : Thursday, December 18, 2014
Margaret Burgess

As we have made clear repeatedly, we welcome the new powers that will come to this Parliament, which we will always use to act in the best interests of the people of Scotland.

Research shows that the UK Government’s welfare reforms are a major cause of some of the big issues that our country faces, such as the worrying rise of people visiting food banks. Sadly, the Smith commission’s proposals will not give us the powers to tackle those issues effectively and coherently.



Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2014 : Thursday, December 18, 2014
Margaret Burgess

I agree with Adam Ingram—[Interruption.]



Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2014 : Thursday, December 18, 2014
The Minister for Housing and Welfare (Margaret Burgess)

There is no comprehensive national data collection on those who access emergency food in Scotland. However, on 24 November the Trussell Trust reported that a total of 51,647 people picked up a three-day supply of groceries from its Scottish food banks between April and September 2014. Of those, 15,424 were children. The total number had risen by 124 per cent since the previous year.

The trust highlighted welfare problems as the biggest contributor to those numbers, stating:

“benefit changes and benefit delays have had a real impact this year”.



Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2014 : Thursday, December 18, 2014
Margaret Burgess

As I said in my earlier answer, we are publishing a progress report today, which will be available for all members to see. We are currently spending unprecedented amounts of money—£94 million this year and £94 million next year—on making homes energy efficient, and we are levering in more than £260 million from the energy companies. We are doing everything that we can to employ energy efficiency measures in homes, but we cannot control fuel prices or the minimum income to improve people’s standard of living.



Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2014 : Thursday, December 18, 2014
The Minister for Housing and Welfare (Margaret Burgess)

The Government remains committed to eradicating fuel poverty. Unfortunately, we have the powers to influence only one of the levers to tackle fuel poverty—the energy efficiency of housing. As the most recent Scottish house condition survey results show, our investment to improve domestic energy efficiency has helped to mitigate the 7 per cent rise in fuel prices that we have seen in the past year.

We continue to focus on increasing the energy efficiency of homes in Scotland, and last week I urged the United Kingdom Government to use its powers to increase the level of the warm home discount and to fund that through central resources. Today, we are publishing a progress report on the Scottish Government’s fuel poverty statement.



Meeting of the Parliament 16 December 2014 : Tuesday, December 16, 2014
The Minister for Housing and Welfare (Margaret Burgess)

I thank John Mason for bringing his concerns about the wellbeing of the occupants of the Bellgrove hotel to the chamber. It is an important subject to bring to the Parliament.

As members have heard, the Bellgrove hotel provides accommodation to around 140 vulnerable men who are at risk of homelessness. As John Mason’s motion notes, the hotel has been an issue for Glasgow City Council for many years. The council has not referred homeless applicants to the Bellgrove hotel since 2010. However, for various reasons, a number of men are willing to stay at the hotel and have their rent paid directly to the owners through housing benefit.

I have a great deal of sympathy with members’ concerns about the amount of public money that is being paid to the owners of the Bellgrove in that way. However, housing benefit is reserved, so there is currently nothing that the Scottish Government can do about the issue. That applies throughout the private sector. We all know of landlords who get housing benefit money and do not keep their properties at the standard that we would expect. If housing benefit were devolved fully, we could take action on the matter.

The issue is complex. The Bellgrove hotel is private accommodation, but it is a house in multiple occupation because it has three or more unrelated people sharing facilities. An HMO can be a flat, student hall, hotel or hostel. Although the Bellgrove calls itself a hotel, it is treated as a hostel and the rents are served by the local rent services.

I have previously said to John Mason that we are working with Glasgow City Council to ensure the safety of the people in the Bellgrove and to examine alternative solutions for them. The conditions that have been reported in the press and that Sandra White pointed out are clearly not acceptable. However, the people at the Bellgrove have not engaged with services or have engaged and then removed themselves from any engagement, and we have to think about how we treat them. We cannot force them out of those premises into something that we think would be more suitable. The answer is to get round the table, consider the issue together and scale down the premises. Certainly, no new people should be sent there.

I met the leader of Glasgow City Council on the issue earlier in the year. That meeting made clear the commitment of the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council to address the matter. We agreed that any long-term solution could be arrived at only by partnership working between us. That has led to continuing contact to identify potential models and, indeed, any financial implications for providing alternative accommodation and services for the residents of the Bellgrove hotel.

Let me be clear: any lack of solution is not due to a lack of commitment to address the situation. If it were easy, a solution would already have been achieved. The Scottish Government will not ignore the matter just because finding a solution is challenging. That is why we agreed to work with Glasgow City Council to consider how best to address the needs of vulnerable homeless people as part of the council’s current strategic review of homelessness services. I will come back to that.

It is my understanding that the council has explored a number of avenues in relation to addressing the concerns that have been expressed about conditions in the Bellgrove. That included an approach to the Care Inspectorate which, after investigation, indicated that it did not have a role in relation to the accommodation. The Care Inspectorate concluded that the services that are provided at the Bellgrove do not fall within the definitions of housing support or care home. As such, the hotel does not require to register with the Care Inspectorate and the inspectorate has no power or duty to intervene.

In arriving at that decision, the Care Inspectorate involved its health and legal colleagues and spoke to the police, social work services and the manager of the hotel. It also consulted supporting staff from other organisations that engage with residents of the hotel. The Care Inspectorate will review its decision if the hotel’s functions change.

Further inquiries have been made in relation to issues such as HMO licensing—Sandra White alluded to that. The purpose of HMO licensing is to ensure that accommodation is safe, well managed and of good quality. The local authority must be satisfied that the landlord is a fit and proper person; that the property is being managed properly; and that acceptable standards of physical accommodation are achieved.

Officials from Glasgow City Council’s licensing team inspected the premises prior to granting the new licence. That is why the licence was granted for only 12 months. The owners of the hotel have been given a number of issues to address in that 12-month period, including issues around the standards and ratios of water closets, bath and shower provision and electrical sockets. All of that is being looked at just now.

The Scottish ministers have issued statutory guidance to local authorities on the licensing of HMOs, but it is the local authority that sets the standards that are required and also sets the fees that are charged for a licence application.

As John Mason noted, Glasgow City Council has granted a new HMO licence for the Bellgrove hotel for a period of one year—I am now repeating myself. I am assured that the city council is actively engaging with the managers of the Bellgrove hotel to ensure that it meets its licensing conditions.

As I have already mentioned, I believe that the best approach for addressing the long-term welfare of the Bellgrove’s residents involves the wider task of considering the needs of the most vulnerable homeless people in Glasgow as part of the council’s current strategic review of homelessness services.

I know that, in recent years, John Mason has tirelessly campaigned to raise the issue of the conditions in the Bellgrove hotel. I hope that, today, I have been able to give him some reassurance that the Scottish Government remains committed to working in partnership with Glasgow City Council to find a satisfactory solution to this complex matter.

Meeting closed at 17:27.  

Meeting of the Parliament 16 December 2014 : Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Margaret Burgess

Again, that is something that we will be looking at and dealing with in the regulations and guidance. It is clearly not a matter for the bill. I do not want to there to be a deadline that people work to, which could mean that they do not get all the information or that they make quick decisions that are perhaps not right because they are pushed for time. I have not said that I will not look at the matter again; what I have said is that it is something to include in regulations, and not in the bill.

A number of members including Jackie Baillie, Ken Macintosh and Alex Rowley talked about the underspend in the first year of the Scottish welfare fund. In the first year, it was a new fund. It was new to local authorities and to the Scottish Government, so I make no apology for changing the guidance. We should not have guidance that is permanent and that will never be altered. We learn, so we should change guidance when we see what is happening in practice, as we are doing.

All that said, our local authorities still paid out more money in the first year of the Scottish welfare fund than was paid out in the last year of the social fund for grants and loans. We have to look at that. Although we did not spend the £32 million, the money is not underspent; it is now being spent and will be spent by local authorities in the current year in the Scottish welfare fund. It is ring fenced for that purpose, and for that purpose only.

As members have said, the best way to address the problem is, of course, to address the root causes of poverty, which we are doing through our child poverty strategy and the appointment of a poverty adviser to the Government to ensure that poverty is considered across every single portfolio.

There will be areas where the operation of the scheme can and should improve, so we will work with local authorities to ensure that people who need help do not come up against unintended barriers. There should also be no stigma attached to anyone who applies to the scheme. Again, we will address that in guidance.

Points have been made about grants being made in the form of cash or goods. Again, we will cover that in the guidance. There are arguments on both sides, but it is clear that the vast majority of crisis grants are paid out in cash. However, there are sound reasons for some goods being provided. Evidence from Heriot-Watt University and users of the fund has made it clear that people have found that to be helpful, but of course they should be involved. People should not be provided with stuff that they do not need or that is not suited to their needs. We can look again at addressing that to ensure that what happens is appropriate.

On variation in the levels of funding that have been paid out in different areas, I do not think that it would be appropriate for us to put a figure on every item and say, “This is how much should be paid out.” Local authorities need that flexibility. What is paid out is what the person who has made the application needs; it is not about saying that because a person makes an application for a certain amount for goods, that is all they will get. We need to be careful about that. It is about what is required.

I am being told to wind up, so I will do that. If Parliament is content to approve the general principles of the bill, I will work with the committee to amend it where necessary in order to ensure that it does what we want it to do, and I will listen carefully to the further evidence that we will get during the consultation on regulations and guidance.

Vote DetailMSP VoteResult

S4M-11901.3 Neil Findlay: Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce—As an amendment to motion S4M-11901
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11901.1 Mary Scanlon: Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce—As an amendment to motion S4M-11901
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11830.2 John Swinney: The Smith Commission—As an amendment to motion S4M-11830 in the name of Ru
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11830 Ruth Davidson: The Smith Commission—That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the Sm
>> Show more
YesCarried

Amendment 6 moved by Dr Richard Simpson on motion S4M-11826 Maureen Watt: Food (Scotland) Bill—That
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11825.3 Claire Baker: End of Year Fish Negotiations—As an amendment to motion S4M-11825 in the n
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11825.2 Jamie McGrigor: End of Year Fish Negotiations—As an amendment to motion S4M-11825 in the
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11825.1 Tavish Scott: End of Year Fish Negotiations—As an amendment to motion S4M-11825 in the n
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11825 Richard Lochhead: End of Year Fish Negotiations—That the Parliament welcomes the successfu
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11763.3 Margaret Burgess: Private Sector Rent Reform—As an amendment to motion S4M-11763 in the
>> Show more
YesCarried

Search for other Motions lodged by Margaret Burgess
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Motion S4M-11877: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/12/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11763.3: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 02/12/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11494: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 10/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11023: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 29/09/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10438: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 23/06/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09926.3: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 06/05/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09747.2: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 17/04/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09749: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 17/04/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09482: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 25/03/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09209: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 03/03/2014 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 S4O-01233: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 27/06/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-01111: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 23/05/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-01048: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 09/05/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-00935: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/04/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-00731: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 22/02/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-00697: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 08/02/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-05033: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/01/2012 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-00566: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 14/12/2011 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-00512: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 07/12/2011 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-00440: Margaret Burgess, Cunninghame South, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/11/2011 Show Full Question >>

Further information

Email our Public Information Service for more information.