Amendment 98, in my name, would insert a provision that would ensure that the court must state a reason for issuing a disqualification order. Under the bill as drafted, the court will have to give a reason for not issuing a disqualification order. I think that it is fair and equitable that the court should give a reason why it is issuing an order as well.

Amendment 99, in my name, seeks to give guidance to the court on what would be a reasonable period of disqualification from owning a dog or horse. I do not believe that it is fair to leave that open ended. The amendment suggests that the period should be up to 18 months for first and second offences and three years for a third offence, and that, for a fourth offence, the period should be up to the discretion of the court. That sliding scale would allow people who have perhaps committed a first offence and did not mean for that offence to occur not to be precluded from owning a dog for ever. That would be a severe blow to many people.

I am interested to hear the minister’s comments on Ariane Burgess’s amendments 15 to 18. The bill has certain descriptions on disqualification and the destruction of horses and dogs, and I would like to hear whether the minister feels that those are sufficient, because the welfare of the animals must be paramount.

Yes, I will, after I finish my point. Clearly, as we all know, Bugs Bunny is not a bunny but a hare.

If you are—[Interruption.] Changing the law on the grounds that the existing legislation on coursing is insufficient and that the police do not have the resources or the knowledge to implement it is a weak reason if people who are abiding by the law and controlling animals that are a problem in Scotland are disadvantaged.

I will say no more because it is obvious that people have made up their minds. I think that both those species should not be within the—[Interruption.] I will close because there is little possibility that I will get anyone to listen to me, given the barracking that is going on. [Interruption.]

I will keep my comments short. I am sorry that we are moving on without considering the real issue here, which is, as I think we all accept, that mink, as a non-native invasive species, is a real challenge to Scotland’s flora and fauna. By passing this bill, we are going to limit the control of that species, which I think is against Scotland’s interests. It is certainly against the interests of some of the iconic species.

If I may just point something out, I know that Ariane Burgess mentioned earlier that foxes do not predate capercaillie and that the RSPB said that that was not the case. I would respectfully suggest that they do in the same way that mink do. If Ms Burgess needs evidence of that, there was a period of two years when the RSPB did not control foxes on Abernethy, and then it went back to controlling them because they do predate. Mink are the same problem as foxes and they need to be controlled. We should not be limiting that.

I understand the minister’s reluctance to remove rabbits, based on the fact that she thinks that people will misidentify them. I say, as a countryman, that I have thought that the only time when rabbits were misconstrued as hares, or hares were misconstrued as rabbits, was when people were watching Bugs Bunny, because clearly—

I am grateful to the minister for giving way. That is definitely not my intention. The amendment makes it clear that the intention is to allow more than two dogs to hunt for an injured animal. It is not a question of hunting and killing the animal; it is about hunting and flushing it in order to allow it to be dispatched humanely. Does she not agree that that is the way that all people in the countryside believe that animals should be dispatched? Will she not reconsider the issue? If it were something that people had a long time to do, maybe they could get a licence to be allowed more dogs, but this relates to a situation that is urgent, when an animal is suffering and it is necessary to dispatch it. I believe that the minister may have misunderstood the amendment.

I agree with Bob Doris. I have noticed a far more tribal approach to motions. The debates that are interesting are the ones in which members can inform themselves about an issue. There are issues about which I have no idea, but I will volunteer to speak in a debate on such an issue, because the debate will inform me about what is going on. Those are the useful motions: they highlight in the Parliament important things that are going on.

I agree with Bob that some motions that are lodged for members’ business debates are purely political. I think that that is wrong, but it probably reflects frustration about the lack of ability to debate such matters in other parliamentary time.

We should have members’ business debates not to make political points but to inform debate. The reason for such debates is to inform us and sometimes celebrate things that are going on.

I echo Bob’s views. We should have a wider inquiry into all those things and consider costings—that is important. We have all found ourselves settling down at 9 o’clock in the evening only to have a heap of motions flood into our inboxes—sometimes there are six motions from just one person. I am not saying that such motions are meaningless, but flooding members’ inboxes with six motions on quite minor issues is not a way to get parliamentarians informed or involved in processes.

I totally agree with that suggestion. In that letter, could you be quite firm in saying that we will continue to look at the matter? You might also offer CPGs that have not complied the opportunity to consider whether they wish to withdraw the group. As an MSP, once you get tied into a group, it is really difficult to say, “Maybe this isn’t working.” If you give those groups the opportunity to consider withdrawing, that might be useful to some members of those groups.

As I always do whenever we consider an application from a cross-party group, I will simply place on record my view about the number of cross-party groups in the Parliament. I know that we are coming on to that, but I will continue to say it until I believe that we have resolved the issue, and I do not think that we have yet.

I do not want to kick off; I want to have a reasoned discussion. Ever since becoming a member of this committee, I have voiced concerns about the amount of work that cross-party groups require from MSPs. In trying to support CPGs, some MSPs take on a huge number of responsibilities, and some feel pressurised into doing so. New members sometimes get themselves into a situation in which they are on several cross-party groups and cannot give any group their full attention.

The chart in the report is extremely interesting. The vast majority of groups are green-lighted—if that is the right description—in that they comply with the rules, but a significant number have one or more yellow warning lights and some have one or more red stop lights.

We need to do more work to consider how to resolve the problem. My gut feeling is that, if a group has two red lights, that is a clear indication that we need to ask whether it is fulfilling its role. The same applies if a group has two yellow lights and a red light.

I do not propose to go through the list—members can do that for themselves and come to their own decisions—but my view is that the committee has a role in helping cross-party groups to decide whether they have a future. We should be forthright in our questioning. We should encourage groups to fulfil the requirements, but, if they cannot do so, we should suggest to them that they drop out.

I say for the record that I do not want my comments to be taken as meaning that I am against all cross-party groups: I am not. I convene two cross-party groups and I give them my entire attention and work hard on them. A lot of MSPs work hard on cross-party groups. However, could I be a member of three, four, five or—as is sometimes the case—10 cross-party groups? I would struggle. I will leave it there.

In the six years that I have been in Parliament, I have noticed exactly the same thing. I have also noticed the amount of time that it takes for motions to be approved and come back through from the Parliament, which suggests that there is a problem in resourcing the system, possibly in funding it, and with the number of motions.

It has changed. In the past, such motions were to congratulate groups and organisations, and now, although I am not saying that we have got to this level, in some cases we are almost at the level of congratulating somebody for baking a cake. I wonder whether that is what the system was proposed for.

We do need to look at this. It would be helpful to have views from people who have been members of the Parliament for longer than I have, to see whether they have noticed the same. Graeme Dey might also come to give evidence to the committee.