Chamber and committees

Perfectly.

Okay. I am happy with that.

It is not for me to object to any particular cross-party group, but I echo what the convener said and what, I think, we all feel, which is that there is a huge number of cross-party groups. The one on nature doubles down on what is being done by other groups. That does not mean that it should not be approved, but the committee will have an obligation at the end of the first full year to look at all the cross-party groups to see whether they are working properly and achieving their aims.

I am sorry, convener but I cannot see how MSPs—notably, those who, although I would not call them group hoppers, are members of several cross-party groups—are not snowed under. In fairness, I am a member of four groups, and I am snowed under. I just have that concern. I do not want to vote against the proposal. If those groups had come in the first tranche, they would probably have had an easier ride; it is unfortunate for them that they are in the last tranche. As I know you acknowledge, convener, the committee needs to do some work on how all the groups are working, because I fear for them.

Before I go any further, I ought to declare that I am joint convener of the cross-party groups on crofting and rural policy, neither of which is mentioned in Mark’s list of groups with which he feels there might be some overlap. I am just concerned about that overlap and how you would manage it. Many of the subjects that you mention are already covered by those groups. Will you explain whether you have reached out to them to find out about that? Have you looked at their work programmes to see whether the work of this cross-party group would fit neatly into the gaps or whether it might be doing the same work?

I will leave it there, except to say that I will be watching closely at the end of a year to see how you have managed to integrate. I am also taken by the fact that you said that, if you do not think that the group is working, you will not continue it. That is honest and helpful, and it makes it easier for me to give it a go. We will come to that at the next bit.

On the item on consent in relation to United Kingdom Parliament bills, I want to clarify that that relates just to the letter and not to all future consents to bills that we might consider.

The topics list does not specifically include climate emergency, but it does include many topics that are covered by the other groups.

I have another question, which is on the organisations. Given that many of the subject areas that you will wish to discuss are covered by other user groups, why have you just gone for environmental groups in the organisations list and no user groups on the areas that you propose to discuss, such as aquaculture, agriculture, forestry and national parks?

A lot of the questions that I wanted to ask have been eloquently put by the deputy convener.

Michael, I bet you wish that you had got the group up and running really early on, when we were not worried that there were more cross-party groups than back-bench MSPs. I think that we are into triple figures now, which causes us concern. I observe that a lot of your members are sitting on more than four cross-party groups, and I think that four is probably pushing it if they are to give each group their full attention.

I am taken by the subject area that you want to look at. Every local authority has a slightly different approach to that area. To be parochial, how will you rope the Highlands into something that will be happening down in Edinburgh? How will you include Orkney and Shetland, which might take a slightly different approach than is taken in the Western Isles? I am interested in how you will touch on that.

So, you have no preconception about the number of dogs that might be required in any circumstance. As you have rightly said, the aim is to get the fox out and shot as quickly as possible, without it being chased, and that will require the use of more than two dogs. Am I right in saying that you have no preconception about the number of dogs?

I will be interested to see how the licence pans out. Mr Dignon will know that, in previous licensing schemes, gamekeepers were required to keep poults in a freezer until they had been inspected by Scottish Natural Heritage, in order to prove that they had been damaged by the species in question.

Lord Bonomy made a very interesting point about the number of dogs required to cover an area of ground. He said that more than two dogs and half a dozen guns would be needed to cover a 200-acre block of forestry. In your view, what would be an acceptable number of dogs? You said that you have been thinking about licensing. If somebody applied for a licence to use 10 dogs, would that be sufficient or too many? How about 15? Where is the limit?