Chamber and committees

I am quite content to go with the second option, which, for clarity, is in annex C—it is to simply provide a hyperlink. That strikes me as being a fairly reasonable way forward. I propose that we go for that option.

I have oscillated on this issue. I have a lot of sympathy with what Mr Eagle said, in that there should be a high bar. I am new to this Parliament, but I have experience in other legislatures of seeing a mushrooming of what, in the case of Westminster, are called all-party parliamentary groups.

The process tends to be that, at the very beginning of a session of Parliament, when there are lots of new members and everyone is excited—perhaps before they have got into their committee work—a lot of cross-party groups start springing up. However, many later wither on the vine.

I was struck by the session 6 legacy report that our predecessor committee produced, which stated that around 20 groups were struck off during that session.

My starting point, therefore, is that there should be quite a high bar for establishing a cross-party group. We need only look at the list of around 120 CPGs in the previous session to see some pretty clear overlaps.

I realise that saying that may not make me popular, but sometimes it is better to be right than popular.

On balance, based on Mr Eagle’s argument, I am minded to suggest that we keep the current arrangements so that the bar remains high. I appreciate that there are challenges in the current session of Parliament; we are all aware that polarisation exists. There is therefore an onus on us, as MSPs, to work together, and, in time, that will bottom itself out.

My starting point is that we should have quite a high bar to ensure that people can get the numbers that they require for CPGs. I note that I am not convinced that the 120 cross-party groups that we currently have are all required.

I have no relevant interests to declare. In the interests of transparency, I stipulate that my partner, Cat Smith, is the British Labour MP for Lancaster and Wyre and is chair of the House of Commons Procedure Committee—so, obviously, this committee has some connection to her work.

We should be clear—when colleagues come before us to establish groups—that it is our hope that the groups will involve all six parties. We recognise the political reality in this place, but, when it comes to the message that is put out, I think that the expectation should be for all six parties to be involved. However, with regard to what is written down, I can live with five.

Ms Baillie might be leading me towards the compromise position that Mr Eagle outlined. I am not on the right of politics; I do not have any candle for it. However, if we end up in the proposed situation whereby at least five MSPs are required, including one from each of the four parties, we will, in essence, have the four parties to the left—broadly and relatively speaking—in this Parliament and, with respect to our colleagues from the Conservatives and Reform, they will not be represented.

In the interests of compromise—if, as a committee, we continue to take that approach, I would be very happy—my proposal is that the requirement should be one MSP from five parties. That way, we would ensure that at least one party from the right is part of a cross-party group and, whether from the Conservatives or Reform, that MSP would add a degree of plurality to the group’s voice. Otherwise, we will simply end up in a situation in which some CPGs will be set up with a combination of Labour Party, Scottish National Party, Liberal Democrat and Green MSPs, and those conversations will give us a centrist left voice. If we do not have members from the Conservatives or Reform in support, we will not get a plurality of voices.

The compromise position would be to require members from five parties, which would ensure that at least one party from the right is represented. I accept Ms Baillie’s point that six is simply too high a bar.

When people enter the prison system, does adequate screening take place to check for neurodivergence and other health issues that people might have?

I will be very brief, because my question follows on slightly from the issues pertaining to mortality that Mr Kerr raised. If I understood you earlier, Sara, you were basically suggesting that the Scottish Prison Service and/or the Scottish Government do not have a strategy for dealing with the older prison population. Is that right?

I have not lodged a motion to annul the instrument, because the order that is before the committee seeks to make provision for a gap that would otherwise exist.

I want to make a comment and to declare an interest. Until recently, the Dogs Trust was the insurance provider. Its rehoming centre is based in the Broomhouse area of my constituency.

It is important that we, as Parliamentarians, place on record our thanks to the Dogs Trust and recognise that it stepped in to provide insurance on a short-term basis. That all came about as a result of the ban on XL bullies. However, clearly, the trust is not set up to do that. It has cost the trust an inordinate amount of money, and I know that it has raised a number of concerns.

The order simply makes provision for a gap that would otherwise exist, which is the result of market failure in the insurance industry.

One point that I want to place on record relates to quite a technical issue. The Dogs Trust freedom project allows survivors of domestic abuse, and those fleeing it, to place their dog in the care of the Dogs Trust. Currently, the legislation states that an exempted XL bully can be separated from its owner for only a 30-day window, but data from the freedom project shows that those dogs spend somewhere between six to nine months in care. I say that largely so that it is on the record for the Scottish Government to be mindful of, because the current situation is not working particularly well.

The order that is before the committee is appropriate—it fills a gap that would otherwise exist in legislation, so I support it.

The prison population has grown exponentially. Has there been a commensurate increase in Scottish Prison Service staffing numbers?

In your excellent report “Remand Prisoners’ Experiences in the Scottish Prison System: An HMIPS Analytical Review”, you say that those on remand are not offered, for example, the work experience opportunities that they are meant to be offered, which goes back to the issue of staffing resources. In Scotland, are we at risk of flouting the Mandela rules when it comes to how we look after people in the prison system?