Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, I am not satisfied.

I understand what you are saying about not labelling particular breeds and the onus being on the handler, but the situations that some dogs, particularly working dogs, find themselves in are not necessarily the same as those that domesticated, stay-at-home, companion pets might face. That should be taken into consideration in any future reviews, to ensure the protection and welfare of those working animals.

On the back of that, I know that animal welfare problems have arisen during the pandemic. Can you highlight any issues in that respect?

I know that we are running out of time, so I will be as brief as I can be, although the answers will probably be quite long.

As a dog owner who has had large-breed dogs, I understand the responsibility that comes with pet ownership and the gravity of the duty of care that is involved. I am sure that the needs and requirements of my large-breed, mostly sofa-dwelling dog, for example, are different from the needs and requirements of dogs that go out and earn their treats for a living.

What would you like to be covered in the review of animal welfare legislation? Do you make a distinction between domesticated companion pets and working dogs?

The discussion has been fascinating. Governments around the world are experimenting with constructing their budget processes around wellbeing, and Scotland is learning from those experiments and looking at how they can help us to formulate budgetary processes, particularly in relation to children and child poverty. Do the witnesses feel that there is often a trap within a service mindset? Is the process easy enough to understand and influence for those who seek to influence it? Can you give us examples of where that has been done successfully in other countries?

It is nice to see all the witnesses today. I have a question on gendered budgeting. Providing gender equality in services is often seen as an additional cost, whether that be in social security or in health and women’s refuge services. Some services are not really built around the needs of women, and resources for gender equality are often seen as an extra. They are almost like an extension to policy, rather than part of the foundation on which the policy is built. We can see that clearly highlighted, as Engender alluded to earlier, in the disproportionate impact that the pandemic has had on women. That has been really clear to us over that time. Where do you see progress being made? What is still missing in gendered budgeting? I am sorry to ask another question, but what lessons can we learn from gendered budgeting when considering human rights budgeting?

I have a little preamble before I ask my question. I think that Jim Fairlie was looking at my notes, because he stole my question, but I will go ahead anyway.

I refer to what Pete Ritchie discussed in answering Ariane Burgess’s questions. We have quite a task to include environmental sustainability alongside health and dietary guidelines. That involves not allowing the importation of food that is produced to environmental standards that are lower than those that we have in Scotland and not simply discarding the issue of environmental damage. We need to take the issues of poverty, diet, health and the environment seriously as a package deal.

We have a real problem with food insecurity and food poverty. The Food Foundation has estimated that those in the poorest decile of the population would have to spend 74 per cent of their disposable income to eat according to the Government guidelines for a healthy diet, whereas the figure for the richest decile is just 6 per cent. That is quite a dilemma.

Poverty does not harm only those who live in it; it harms the local economy and the environment overall. How can we square food growers and producers receiving a fair payment and supplying food to people at an affordable price?

I hear a lot about shortening the supply chain. Are there other packages of measures that we could pin down and home in on? Can you give your expertise on that?

Thank you, convener. Sally Shortall spoke a lot about the role that women play in diversifying the sector. I visited a working farm that is diversifying into agritourism. The woman farmer highlighted her farming practices, which have been incredibly successful. The farm is environmentally aware, it reuses and recycles materials to make camping pods, for example, it educates people on the farm and it supports the local economy. It ticks so many boxes. It is an example of a woman’s pragmatic approach taking off when she was given the pathway and the support to do that. Is the gendered lens that is being used helping to open up the often untapped potential and entrepreneurship of women in the sector? How will the work that you have done enhance the whole sector, not just the position of women?

We have heard a lot about conversion therapy on a personal level, and “shame based” is a term that I have heard used to describe it. The fact that conversion therapy is often undertaken within the private sphere makes it difficult to see its full extent. Is there a danger that evidence could be hidden because of the privacy aspect or because of the definitions that were mentioned earlier? Is there anything more substantial that could impact on the evidence base?

Thank you. That is really helpful.

You have answered my second question, which was a follow-up question about the fact that a lot of aspects of the issue are hidden. Is there anything that we could do prior to legislating for a ban? You touched on a few points in that regard, but perhaps you would like to expand on what you said.