Seòmar agus comataidhean

Minister, I hope that this suggestion, which follows on from Mr Ewing’s, will also be helpful. I have a Union of European Football Associations C licence for football coaching. As part of the journey to that, there is an online element of first aid training, but CPR is not included in it. Every football coach in Scotland must do the level 1.1 coaching course, and first aid is part of that. Will you commit to engaging with the Scottish Football Association and Scottish Women’s Football on CPR being included as part of that coaching pathway? The point about schools is a good one, and my suggestion is another mechanism through which we can get the message out there in a structured environment.

Thank you.

Given the United Kingdom National Screening Committee’s planned review of evidence on population screening for sudden cardiac death, what role might the Scottish Government play in that regard? Moreover, what additional steps is the Scottish Government taking to improve data collection, classification and public reporting of sudden cardiac deaths, particularly in young people?

I might disassociate myself with the rationale behind that, but I certainly think that we should close the petition.

That is helpful clarity. I wondered why the work was taking so long, but I appreciate that it might have been because of the different historical information technology systems at Police Scotland. How is the recording of any identified gender delimited on the new system? Is the person literally just recorded as a trans person or are there different ways in which the person might identify?

My suite of amendments—amendments 1 to 8—seeks to ensure that the aggravation can be extended by regulations to apply to the theft of dogs that would not ordinarily be considered to be assistance dogs. The amendments would replace the label “assistance dog” with the broader expression “helper dog”. The broader term would enable Scottish ministers to extend the definition of “helper dog” through regulations. In practice, it would allow the Scottish ministers to extend the definition to include, for example, service dogs and other working dogs, should they choose to do so.

The amendments would not affect the aggravation’s operation in relation to assistance dogs as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

This has been a helpful debate on group 2. I have nothing to add.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 to 5 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

I will speak to my amendments 17 and 18. I am acutely aware that, in its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that section 5 be removed from the bill. The minister, too, has made her position clear. Following discussions with ministers and officials, I agreed to lodge amendment 17 to remove section 5 from the bill, to give effect to the policy of removing the requirement for review. Amendment 18 is consequential to that and would remove from the long title the reference to a review.

I thank the committee, Rachael Hamilton, the minister and her officials for constructive discussions throughout stages 1 and 2.

I think that, in the fullness of time, and after the expert working group has been consulted, working dogs and working gun dogs should be defined as helper dogs if the expert advisory group and Scottish ministers choose to go down that path. However, amendment 20 is, in my view, too restrictive and prescriptive. Amendments 1 to 8 would enable the policy intent behind amendment 20 to be achieved in any event. Ultimately, any regulations would be subject to scrutiny by Parliament—not by me.

Amendments 21 and 22 would create new sections after section 2. Their effect is similar, albeit that amendment 22 is specific to working gun dogs while amendment 21 relates to working dogs more generally. The amendments would provide for an aggravation in respect of those dogs. In relation to both amendments, I reiterate my earlier point that my amendments 1 to 8 would provide ministers with the regulation-making power to designate different categories of dogs, which could include working dogs or working gun dogs, as helper dogs.

I understand that ministers would develop regulations in concert with their expert working group. Therefore, it would be prudent to allow the working group and ministers the time to consider whether such aggravations should be applied to, for example, working dogs or working gun dogs.

I move amendment 1.

I have a number of concerns with the amendment. First, I am not entirely clear why a specific fund would be created to upgrade the security of kennels housing gun dogs and not other dogs. It would seem to create an inequity between those dogs and other working dogs, assistance dogs or, indeed, dogs generally. I am not clear why those dogs should receive protection that is not afforded to other dogs.

Secondly, the amendment appears to carry with it significant cost, and that causes me concern. Currently, the bill is relatively inexpensive. If agreed, amendment 23 would potentially change that and the benefit would be experienced by only a small proportion of dogs and owners. My bill already creates an offence for the theft of all dogs, including working gun dogs. Furthermore, the amendments in my name that the committee has agreed to mean that the Government could create an aggravation for the theft of working gun dogs via regulations, should it choose to do that. Amendment 23 goes significantly beyond that. Ultimately, the proposal is potentially expensive, it is too specific to a particular type of dog, and it is fraught with unintended consequences.