Chamber and committees

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?

Thank you for allowing me to ask those questions, convener.

This is the second time that I have been to the committee, but I again remind members that I have an interest in a family farm. It does not have lambs on it, for which I might be thankful.

Minister, I have a couple of what I think are interesting comments to make about licensing. I think that Jim Fairlie is right: flushing a fox out of a wood can be preventative if it moves the fox on before lambing starts. Foxes will use the same ground each year and should be moved on before lambing starts. However, I am concerned about the requirement to provide evidence of damage. If evidence of damage has to be submitted during the short lambing period, everyone will want to use the same dogs for the same 14-day period to flush foxes out of the woods to waiting guns. How will that issue be addressed?

I will not move the amendment. I hope that I can discuss the matter with the Scottish Government.

Amendment 108 not moved.

Section 37 agreed to.

After section 37

Amendments 64 and 65 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Thank you, convener. Having not been to the committee before, I do want to make a declaration of my interests, which have already, of course, been declared to the Parliament.

My farming business includes six rental properties. The rental income from those properties is critical to the security of the core agricultural business. I also remind the committee that I am a qualified rural surveyor with more than 20 years of professional experience, including the letting of properties for clients who are on holiday, and short and long-term lets. That experience has allowed me to develop a good understanding of the three housing acts that will be amended by the bill. I am not practising in the surveyors market at the moment, and have not done since I was elected.

I understand your points about amendments 107 and 108. Regarding your other points, it is critical that the First-tier Tribunal is correctly resourced. Given that you support keeping the act as it is, can you give some indication of the additional resources that will be made available to the First-tier Tribunal? For how long would it be reasonable for tribunals to wait before hearing a case?