Roseanna Cunningham MSP

Welcome to Roseanna Cunningham MSP's biography pages

Roseanna Cunningham MSP

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

  • Member for: Perthshire South and Kinross-shire
  • Region: Mid Scotland and Fife
  • Party: Scottish National Party

Roseanna is a member of the following Committees:

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

Parliamentary Activities

Search for other Speeches made by The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Roseanna Cunningham)

Meeting of the Parliament 12 November 2014 : Wednesday, November 12, 2014
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Roseanna Cunningham)

I am aware of the situation and I know that tackling youth antisocial behaviour is being prioritised by local police. Fifteen officers have been deployed, providing additional assistance and reassurance to the local community. Positive steps are being taken to involve all partners, and a multi-agency joint action plan is in place to reduce the levels of antisocial behaviour and youth offending.



Meeting of the Parliament 12 November 2014 : Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Roseanna Cunningham

I am happy to agree with Colin Keir on that. Partnership working, with local communities working with Police Scotland and the local authority, is an effective way to tackle local issues and to ensure that the public feel safe in their homes and are free to go about their business unhindered.

I support Edinburgh’s attempt to reduce offending, which includes using the whole-system approach to preventing, diverting, managing and changing offending behaviour by children and young people. As a result of that approach, the number of children in Edinburgh who have committed offences in the past three years has reduced by 28 per cent.



Meeting of the Parliament 12 November 2014 : Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Roseanna Cunningham

Malcolm Chisholm is probably reflecting a feeling that can become widespread in communities. Work in the children’s hearings system with young people who offend takes place on a confidential basis, as he knows. The extent of intervention might not always be obvious to communities, but that does not mean that offending behaviour and its impact are not being confronted and addressed. It is important for us to reinforce that point. We also have in place diversionary activities that are being funded through the cashback for communities programme, which he will be aware of.

Sadly, the subject that we are dealing with is not a new problem. The same issue was being raised many years ago when I was a local government candidate in Edinburgh. Members will realise just how long ago that was when I tell them that Alistair Darling won that election and became the regional councillor for the area.

That is a reflection of the enduring difficulties that can arise with such behaviour and of the long-term need to tackle it at the preventative end rather than at the end that features the offending behaviour.



Meeting of the Parliament 12 November 2014 : Wednesday, November 12, 2014
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Roseanna Cunningham)

Hanzala Malik may be feeling rather overtaken by events. No doubt he will have been in attendance for the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning’s statement yesterday. The cabinet secretary gave his assurance that by the end of this year we will reach a decision on whether a further public inquiry will be convened, after we have had an opportunity to listen very closely to views on all sides of the debate, to ensure that the action taken is well informed and meaningful.



Meeting of the Parliament 12 November 2014 : Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Roseanna Cunningham

We only need to think about what is happening with Westminster’s public inquiry for the member to agree that it is important that we get this right from the start. We intend to consult survivors about all aspects of the kind of inquiry that might be required and who might sit on that inquiry. It is important that we do that and understand clearly whether the whole process of the kind of inquiry that might be being asked for is manageable.

The Government has made a commitment that a decision will be made on that by the end of this year. How time limited one can make that inquiry is a different question entirely.



Meeting of the Parliament 11 November 2014 : Tuesday, November 11, 2014
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Roseanna Cunningham)

Scotland’s Parliament is an institution that is founded on deeply held progressive values. Those values are held in common and reflect a shared belief in freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and the fundamental worth and inherent dignity of all humanity. Such values inform our day-to-day work.

There is a mace sitting at the centre of the chamber. It reminds us that the authority that has been granted to us by the people of Scotland is to be exercised with wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity.

As Donald Dewar rightly said, those were, and remain, “timeless values, honourable aspirations” for Scotland’s new democracy. They are woven into the fabric of all of our endeavours on behalf of all the people of our nation. They remind us, too, of the need to be constantly aware of our special responsibilities as custodians of the fundamental standards that underpin civilised society.

The most important of those standards are the universal and inalienable human rights that are enshrined in international law and are woven into the founding statute of this Parliament.

Mary Robinson, the former Irish President and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, defined human freedom as:

“that precious space secured by the standards, laws and procedures which defend, protect and enhance human rights”.

She did so in a lecture in 1997—coincidentally, on 11 November—shortly after becoming UN high commissioner. She went on to note that, for the world at large, international human rights laws exist because

“domestic protection of vulnerable individuals or groups is either absent or insufficient.”

In Scotland, we are fortunate enough to have fundamental rights that are not only defined in international law, but are clearly set out in domestic statute through the Scotland Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. That is, I think we can agree, a good thing. It is also a necessary thing, and it is a thing of which we should be proud—just as we are proud of the focus that this Parliament has placed on the need to act always with wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity.

Strangely, however, there are people for whom the standards that secure human freedom—standards of which we in this chamber are all custodians—are somehow a bad thing. To listen to such voices is to hear the message that the fundamental rights that we are all born with are an alien imposition, that they are a hindrance, a constraint and an unwanted limitation on the power of Government and authority, and that we would all be much better off if we cut ourselves free from such strange foreign notions as freedom and liberty, equality and justice or the right to a fair trial.



Meeting of the Parliament 11 November 2014 : Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Roseanna Cunningham

As Murdo Fraser will hear, I acknowledge that Governments do not always like what comes out of the courts. That is not a reason to take away the right to get to those courts in the first place.

The message that is beginning to emerge is not one that holds the slightest attraction for any democrat in this Parliament. To retreat from our common commitment to human rights would be entirely at odds with where Scotland now finds itself. Around this chamber, I detect a desire to move forwards, not to go backwards. In wider Scottish society, I detect the same interest in doing more, and not less, in order to secure and promote the rights to which we are all entitled. It is no accident that human rights are mentioned in four out of the five party submissions to the Smith commission. It is also no accident that human rights are a key theme in civil society contributions, including the letter that was submitted jointly by the non-governmental members of the leadership panel of Scotland’s national action plan for human rights.

I realise that some people will protest that I am misrepresenting the position of opponents of the Human Rights Act 1998 and am overplaying the threat that is represented by their proposals. I disagree. I will return to what is proposed, but to downplay the threat is to seriously misunderstand the true impact of the escalating and irresponsible anti-Europe, anti-human-rights rhetoric that we have been hearing from prominent members of the UK Government.

Members will be well aware—I expect that Liberal Democrat members will be anxious to make this point—that such anti-human-rights rhetoric represents the views of a small but powerful, and extreme, group of individuals at Westminster. It is very definitely not the policy of the UK Government, as we will be told, and it is not the policy of the main opposition parties at Westminster. That was a point that Alistair Carmichael, speaking as Secretary of State for Scotland, has underlined in no uncertain terms.

I want also to welcome the equally robust views that we have heard from the Labour Party. Sadiq Khan was absolutely correct in his observation that

“leaving the ECHR ... would be a disaster for this country”.

Just as David Cameron seems to be intent on moving ever closer to an exit from the European Union, so, too, there appears to be a cavalier desire to play Russian roulette with the Council of Europe and fundamental human rights. If David Cameron and Chris Grayling do not get their way—which seems to consist mainly of being allowed to pick and choose which laws and court judgments they feel like implementing—the UK could join Belarus and Kazakhstan as the only countries in Europe that are outside of the European convention on human rights system. That position has attracted derision from some eminent commentators. One has described it as follows:

“It’s as if we said to Fifa: ‘We’ll play in the World Cup, but we’ll only obey referees’ decisions if we agree with them.’”

It has prompted others to note the irony that the ECHR was originally proposed by Winston Churchill, following the horrors of the second world war. It was drafted in large measure by British lawyers. Churchill’s own party now looks at those same principles with contempt, and proposes to undermine the world’s most successful human rights treaty.

Make no mistake: the potential withdrawal of the UK from the convention—which is where we are heading—sends a message to every dictator around the globe that they, too, can have carte blanche to pick and choose which of humanity’s fundamental standards to respect. The dangers of that should be apparent to everyone. They are dangers that this Parliament has a duty to confront.

There has long been a cross-party consensus in Scotland on the fundamental importance of human rights. As Scots, we have traditionally had, and continue to have, a deep-rooted attachment to concepts of fairness, justice and equality. We have been reminded in recent months by Professor Alan Miller, the chair of Scotland’s independent UN-accredited Scottish Human Rights Commission, that attempts by politicians to limit accountability

“for the exercise of power”

would be

“in stark contrast to the spirit of democratic renewal that has come to life in Scotland in recent times.”

He has gone further, emphasising that human rights must never be treated as a political football or abused for short-term political gain. As he has made clear:

“Playing party politics with human rights is irresponsible, undermines the rule of law, sets a dangerous precedent to other states and risks taking us backwards when it comes to protecting people’s rights in everyday life.”

I want to be equally clear, on behalf of the Scottish Government, that we regard Scotland’s continuing membership of the ECHR system and the Council of Europe as a necessary and permanent feature of the constitutional settlement. It is non-negotiable. We regard the Human Rights Act 1998 as effective and successful implementation of ECHR, and one that is itself also a fundamental constitutional statute.

Of course, there is always scope for Scotland to go further in giving effect to international human rights—in particular, by building on this Parliament’s existing commitment to civil and political rights, and by looking closely at how to give better and further effect to wider economic, social and cultural rights. However, there cannot and will not be any backsliding on, or erosion of, the existing fundamental safeguards that are provided by, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Scotland Act 1998. That, I believe, is a position that is shared by most, if not—as I like to think—all members of this Parliament.

That is not to say that implementing ECHR commitments is always easy for Government. Murdo Fraser has already flagged up one of the issues that gives Governments some difficulty. In many ways, though, such things are precisely the point of having human rights safeguards written into our fundamental laws. Laws such as the Human Rights Act 1998 exist precisely to enable ordinary members of society to challenge the preferences of the powerful. There is no doubt that our obligations under ECHR have required both the Government and Parliament in Scotland to think increasingly in a rights-based and person-centred way. That goes back to 1999 and the inception of this Parliament.

Governments struggle occasionally with the decision making that comes out of ECHR. However, at the end of the day, if it was only ever going to be about decisions that every Government agreed with, there would hardly be much point in the first place.

We have become accustomed to embedding principles of reasonableness and proportionality, fairness and balance at the heart of our policy and legislative processes. That has imposed a positive discipline on us all. Whether we are talking about health and social care, criminal justice, housing or the devolution of possible new powers in areas including welfare or employment, all those matters have human rights at their very heart, and all would be likely to suffer from any erosion of our commitment to making rights real for everyone in our society.

I will conclude by making it clear that a threat to our human rights exists. The Presiding Officer need not worry about the time, because this conclusion will perhaps be slightly longer than she might be expecting. The threat has been dressed up in rhetoric about “restoring common sense” and ensuring a

“proper balance between rights and responsibilities”.

When we look behind that façade, what we see is a world in which powerful people truly believe that politicians, not the courts, should be able to decide which members of our society are “deserving” of protection and which cases are “too trivial” to be heard. It is a world in which international commitments and legal obligations count for nothing, and where the rule of law comes second to the prejudices of the party in power. It is a world in which a Government and the Parliament that it controls can be sovereign and where the natural order of democracy, in which the people are supreme, is turned on its head.

This is not an abstract issue. The proposals that have been presented would deny recourse, for example, for members of the armed forces and their families if a future UK Government sent them into combat without proper equipment.

Our ability to claim our rights would be restricted to “the most serious cases”—those which involve property rights or the prospect of imprisonment. That would be a travesty of the robust and comprehensive safeguards that protect everyone, from elderly people in care homes or disabled people who are being victimised by the bedroom tax, right through to local campaigners exercising their democratic right to protest, or any one of us enjoying the right that we all have to privacy and respect for our family life.

The erosion of those rights is not acceptable to Scotland. As citizens of the world, we have a responsibility to stand up for the standards that secure human freedom. We might be a small voice in the world, but we are a voice, which is important. When it comes to the rights that belong to all humanity, we should never be tempted to opt out or to walk on by or to decide that being uncomfortable as a Government is sufficient reason to set those rights aside.

This Parliament has the capacity to speak with an authoritative and democratic voice. We have an obligation to step up to the mark when rights are on the line. That is why I ask all members of Scotland’s Parliament to unite today in making it clear that threats to the Human Rights Act 1998 are irresponsible and unacceptable both in terms of their direct impact in Scotland and because, ultimately, if rights regress in a modern western democracy, they inevitably fail in the rest of the world.

I move,

That the Parliament re-affirms and re-asserts, on behalf of all of the people of the community of Scotland, the inalienable human rights and fundamental freedoms that are the common inheritance of all members of humanity; recalls the particular importance to the Parliament, through its founding statute, its founding principles and in all aspects of its day-to-day work, of human rights in general and of the European Convention on Human Rights in particular; acknowledges the constitutional responsibility of the Parliament to uphold the principles and values expressed in the convention and to respect, protect and realise the rights and freedoms that it enumerates; further acknowledges the importance of that work not only in relation to Scotland, but also in establishing and maintaining standards of best practice, which provide a benchmark for human rights elsewhere in the world; expresses its confidence in, and support for, the Human Rights Act 1998 as a successful and effective implementation of the convention in domestic law, and believes that the principles and values that inform the convention, the rights and freedoms that it enumerates and the Acts that incorporate it into law, should be a source of unity and consensus across the whole of society and should enjoy the unequivocal backing of all who are committed to upholding human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

15:08  

Meeting of the Parliament 11 November 2014 : Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Roseanna Cunningham

Today’s debate has been calm and reasonable, but I wish that I could say the same about all those who denigrate human rights, misrepresent what human rights mean and talk of trivial cases. Unfortunately, some of those voices are being heard very loudly at the moment in our public discourse.

It is often said that the health of a democratic society can be measured by whether the things that unite us across the political spectrum are stronger than the things that divide us. Our shared political experience since devolution certainly suggests that we have a very healthy democracy in Scotland, and this afternoon’s debate provides further convincing evidence—it is welcome if not surprising—that despite our differences there remains a powerful unity of vision and principle to be found among all members of this Parliament. Defending and promoting the fundamental rights that belong to all of the people of Scotland is self-evidently one of the principles on which we speak with one voice—not that we are saying the same thing about it, of course.

I am grateful to Jackson Carlaw for the sober and responsible way in which he opened the debate for the Conservatives. However, he is suggesting, I think, that David Cameron and Chris Grayling are simply promoting debate about how the UK implements the ECHR. We have had that debate before, a couple of years ago, when the UK Government’s Commission on a Bill of Rights travelled the UK to take evidence on exactly the same issue. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party does not seem to have heard the message from that previous conversation—that Scotland is not interested in ditching the Human Rights Act 1998 or retreating from the ECHR. That was clearly recognised in the work of the commission that was the focus of some of Roderick Campbell’s remarks.

That commission explicitly drew attention to the importance of the devolved dimension. Indeed, I gave substantive evidence to it, much of which flagged up the huge number of devolution complications that would occur if the UK Government continued down the road that it was on. Yet it is evident from the proposals published by Chris Grayling that devolution has barely registered. The best his paper offers is a throwaway reference. I suggest that that is not good enough. With Scotland’s constitutional journey being far from over, we might have expected the UK justice secretary to demonstrate rather greater awareness that Scotland’s views on this issue matter.

I acknowledge the various speeches that were made in the debate, particularly those from Alison McInnes for the Liberal Democrats and Elaine Murray and Graeme Pearson for the Labour Party. I also recognise the unequivocal support for the European convention and the Human Rights Act 1998 that was articulated by a great many members this afternoon. I particularly warmly welcome John Finnie’s remarks, and in doing so I also pay tribute to the immense contribution that he makes to the Parliament’s work in the field of human rights through his roles as convener of the cross-party group on human rights and rapporteur on human rights for the Justice Committee.

Today’s debate demonstrates that we are united not only in our commitment to human rights as the fundamental standards that define human freedom but in our belief that playing party politics with human rights is irresponsible and dangerous. The Human Rights Act 1998 and our commitment to the European convention on human rights are not political playthings to be cynically misrepresented for cheap electoral advantage. Both Jamie Hepburn and Kevin Stewart found Thorbjørn Jagland’s comments for themselves, so I will not repeat them. He is secretary general of the Council of Europe and, incidentally, both a former Prime Minister of Norway and chairman of the Norwegian Nobel committee. I will, however, observe that a favourite son of Scotland once expressed the same sentiments in a rather different fashion when he wrote:

“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!”

We should pause and consider the impact on the UK’s standing in the world if we go down the road that is being proposed. I say that genuinely. Essentially, we must all be careful to remember that, when we make public pronouncements that touch on the universal rights of all humanity, we do so not merely as politicians, nor simply as elected members of the Scottish or UK Parliaments, nor in my case as the relevant minister, nor in David Cameron’s case as the Prime Minister; we do so as citizens of the world with an obligation to all humanity.

I spoke earlier about celebrating the things that unite us in a democratic society. That unity requires a willingness to engage in respectful debate, so let me make it clear that I entirely respect the contributions that Conservative members have made to this debate and the questions that they have raised. However, when they talk of “mission creep”, are they really saying anything more than that society changes? We are not who we were in that early post-war period and we would not want that society back, with all its open prejudices and inbuilt discriminations. It is inherent in a human rights approach that we should always seek to question and review and to act in a manner that is balanced, reasonable and proportionate.



Meeting of the Parliament 11 November 2014 : Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Roseanna Cunningham

The way in which our system works is that the judiciary is part and parcel of all of that. We do not separate them out. What I am hearing from the Conservatives suggests that they are moving towards separating them. I recognise that there is a very complex debate there.

It is true that giving proper effect to human rights can sometimes cause disruption to the way that we have traditionally done things but, as MSPs, we are all familiar with the need to uphold fundamental rights and to ensure that we keep current policies and practices under effective review. We can take key lessons from difficult cases.

A number of members have mentioned slopping out. That was a difficult issue at the time, but from that example we learned that fully integrating human rights thinking into the design and review of laws, policies and procedures produces a far more sustainable and robust result in the long term.

Can we get the matter into proportion? Some 99 per cent of cases that are brought against the UK as a whole do not succeed. As Alison McInnes mentioned, in 2013 only eight cases resulted in a finding that there had been a violation of the European convention on human rights. Both Scotland and the UK have every reason to be proud of that record. Given that so few cases are lost, there is some justification for the suspicion that what lies behind the Conservatives’ move has more to do with the current state of electoral politics south of the border than anything to do with principle. I ask the Conservatives to take that comment on board in the genuine spirit in which I make it.

As I have already observed, the idea that the UK should step back from its current commitment to the ECHR system has to be seen against the backdrop of a wider Europhobic agenda. One of the proposals that the Scottish Government has advanced in response to that is the requirement—this is the controversial bit—for a double majority in the event of a vote on leaving the European Union, so that British exit from the EU would need more than just a majority in England; it would require support in all the constituent parts of the UK.

An analogous argument applies in the context of the ECHR. It would clearly be unacceptable for a simple Westminster majority to deprive the people of Scotland of the safeguards that are provided by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the wider ECHR system. Such a change already requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament under the Sewel convention, but that remains a political convention rather than a legal obligation. Therefore, there is a powerful and convincing argument to entrench the Sewel convention in a manner that ensures that no future UK Government can unilaterally repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 or take Scotland out of the ECHR.

In fact, Scottish civil society organisations have presented that proposal in recent submissions to the Smith commission. They have done so entirely independently of governmental or party-political input to the Smith process. I welcome that initiative and believe that the Scottish Parliament will wish to debate and support that proposal in due course. However, that is for future discussion, of course, and likely vigorous consideration.

Let me conclude the debate by turning our focus back to the motion and to the clear existence—given the nature of the debate that we have had—of the broadly based consensus that unites members across the chamber. We have heard a resounding endorsement of the inalienable human rights and fundamental freedoms that are enshrined in the European convention on human rights. There seems to be an emerging difference about how that can be delivered and concern about the reasons behind that emerging difference, but we can see that we are obviously not departing from the overall commitment.

We have heard a clear expression of confidence in and support for the Human Rights Act 1998 as a successful and effective implementation of the convention in domestic law and, above all, we have established without doubt that these rights and the mechanisms that implement them in Scotland enjoy the unequivocal backing of all who are committed to upholding human rights, democracy and the rule of law not only at home in our own country, but on behalf of all fellow members of humanity around the world.



Meeting of the Parliament 05 November 2014 : Wednesday, November 05, 2014
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Roseanna Cunningham)

I assure everyone in the chamber that this Government remains completely committed to tackling sectarianism. The level of that commitment can be seen in the immense amount of work that has been undertaken over the past three years.

Elaine Murray talked at length about the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, which in our view has a clear role to play in meeting the commitment that was made. There are welcome indications of success—offences of religious hatred and offending under the act have decreased, so it is working.

It is important to remember that the act was brought in for a reason—to tackle offensive and abusive behaviour at and around football. In recent days, we have been reminded why the act is needed by the online abuse, including threats of violence and death, that has been sent to players and their families. People need to remember the extraordinarily heated atmosphere in which the legislation emerged.

We have never tried to claim that sectarianism is confined to football, which is why we have invested a record £9 million over three years to tackle this scourge through a range of activities. That has been the biggest commitment that any Government in Scotland has ever made to anti-sectarianism. As was stated in the draft budget last month, I am making a further commitment to invest more than £3 million in 2015-16 to support community-based initiatives to tackle sectarianism and to further develop our understanding through research, while continuing to support work to tackle racial or ethnic hatred. It is a pity that Elaine Murray did not read that line in the draft budget.

When I came into this job, I had two very clear aims for the anti-sectarianism agenda. The first was to ensure that the work that we were supporting was getting into communities and tackling the problems that they were experiencing, and the second was to build a robust research and knowledge base on the nature and extent of sectarianism in modern Scotland so that future policy could be made on the basis of evidence and not innuendo. When I first came into this job, I remember being quite shocked to discover that there was virtually no information or evidence base available in Scotland. We have spent considerable time and money beginning to put that work into place to ensure that we have the necessary evidence in future.

That is why I have ensured that our work is a good example of what we are calling the Scottish approach, which is informed by the Christie commission. It is an approach that is assets based and which places the needs of communities at the centre of the agenda. There are 44 community-based projects, which are bottom up and not top down. They are allowing us to get to the heart of the issue as it is experienced by communities. The solutions that are emerging are being tailored to the specific issues that are identified.

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 Roseanna Cunningham
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Motion S4M-11484: Roseanna Cunningham, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 09/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11395.1: Roseanna Cunningham, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 04/11/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10291: Roseanna Cunningham, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/06/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10090: Roseanna Cunningham, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 19/05/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09957: Roseanna Cunningham, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 06/05/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09272: Roseanna Cunningham, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 07/03/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-08950: Roseanna Cunningham, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 04/02/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-08881: Roseanna Cunningham, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 28/01/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-08544: Roseanna Cunningham, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 09/12/2013 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-08422: Roseanna Cunningham, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 26/11/2013 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 S3O-05825: Roseanna Cunningham, Perth, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 05/02/2009 Show Full Question >>
Question S3O-05305: Roseanna Cunningham, Perth, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 18/12/2008 Show Full Question >>
Question S3O-05247: Roseanna Cunningham, Perth, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/12/2008 Show Full Question >>
Question S3O-05049: Roseanna Cunningham, Perth, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 27/11/2008 Show Full Question >>
Question S3W-11949: Roseanna Cunningham, Perth, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/04/2008 Show Full Question >>
Question S3W-11850: Roseanna Cunningham, Perth, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 15/04/2008 Show Full Question >>
Question S3W-11849: Roseanna Cunningham, Perth, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 15/04/2008 Show Full Question >>
Question S3W-11851: Roseanna Cunningham, Perth, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 15/04/2008 Show Full Question >>
Question S3W-11221: Roseanna Cunningham, Perth, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 25/03/2008 Show Full Question >>
Question S3W-10098: Roseanna Cunningham, Perth, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 20/02/2008 Show Full Question >>