Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the expert working group’s discussions on helper dogs, has the issue been raised of the ownership versus the handling of certain dogs? For example, although an expert sniffer dog that is used at airports might not necessarily be owned by the handler, the handler might take care of the dog and take it home every night. Has the clarity that is required regarding the owner versus the handler been part of the discussions?

Consolidation legislation was talked about when I was pursuing my livestock-worrying bill, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. My goal at the time was to update the 70-year-old legislation in the UK, as alpacas and llamas are now livestock, which was not the case under the original legislation. Consolidation legislation is an option. However, it is resource intensive to pull all the legislation together. Although it is an option, producing such a bill is very resource intensive and time intensive. Is that what consolidation legislation would involve?

I do not want to belabour the oval racetrack issue, but I am looking at evidence on injuries to hocks, wrists, feet, hind long bones, fore long bones, hind limbs and muscles. There has been loads of evidence that thousands of dogs have been injured on oval racetracks.

Minister, I joined the committee when you left it, so I was not part of the previous evidence gathering. However, having worked with Mark Ruskell in the past few years, looking at evidence and listening to what the Dogs Trust, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and OneKind are saying, I believe that all the evidence points to the fact that oval racetracks cause damage to dogs. I am interested in whether the Scottish Government supports the approach to oval racetracks, which you mentioned in your opening statement. I suppose that we are linking the oval racetrack issue with the evidence that oval racetracks cause injury. Is the evidence that I am looking at defining that? Is that correct?

If a straight racetrack were to open and you kept it under review, the flexibility in the proposed legislation would allow the Government to alter its approach, because the proposal covers only oval racetracks.

Retired greyhounds make great pets when they are rehomed. It looks as though we have lots of dogs that need to be rehomed in Scotland, even though racing is not happening in Scotland. I am looking at some of the data on charities that are sometimes burdened because of dogs having injuries that need to be dealt with before they can be rehomed. Is the Government working with some of those charities to look at the number of animals that need surgery or other treatment before they are rehomed? Is such data being gathered? I am looking at Andrew Voas as well.

It has been pointed out to me that, because of the requirement to train health professionals—whether they are carers, registered nurses or any other people who are entering someone’s home—they would need to be provided with education. I do not know the direct costs, but I understand that that would potentially cause a cost burden under the member’s bill. I am happy for amendments 12 and 13 to be probing amendments for discussion and to hear what the member has to say about the issue.

Good morning. I have been listening carefully, and I appreciate colleagues’ thoughtful and respectful contributions so far. My amendments 12 and 13 are directly linked. Amendment 12 allows the introduction of amendment 13. My amendments seek to allow registered medical practitioners to consult other health and social care professionals, such as nurses, carers and social workers, when assessing whether a person has made a declaration voluntarily and without coercion.

I remind colleagues that I am still a registered nurse. The proposal was informed by engagement over summer recess with constituents and medical professionals working in end-of-life and palliative care. I met the Royal College of Nursing over the summer, and again recently, and I met the Scottish Association of Social Work. The medical professionals raised concerns that non-medical professionals often have more frequent and meaningful contact with individuals nearing the end of life and may be better placed to detect subtle signs of coercion or distress. I acknowledge what Bob Doris said about people feeling that they are a burden.

Originally, my amendments aimed to strengthen safeguards and promote a multidisciplinary approach, ensuring that assessments are thorough and person centred. Acknowledgement was made of concerns around the wording, particularly regarding the liability, responsibility and training of professionals, such as registered nurses, to be accountable for assessing coercion, whether overt or subtle. I am aware of the potential cost implications in that approach.

My amendments are therefore presented as probing amendments, and I am willing to work with the member in charge ahead of stage 3 to redefine the language or change it if necessary.

I think so—I had finished.

It is on the back of Beatrice Wishart’s question and is on ownership of owner-occupied crofts. Currently, there is no explicit restriction on who may own an owner-occupied croft, so it includes natural persons, which are people, and non-natural persons, which might be companies, trusts or partnerships. Section 10 introduces a new legal restriction that is aimed at limiting ownership of owner-occupied crofts to individuals only. The intention is to ensure that owner-occupied crofts continue to be held by individuals, who can then fulfil the aims of cultivation, agriculture, food production and so on. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that section.

I am thinking about the openness and transparency around who owns the croft and who owns the land in Scotland. Transparency International has done some work on the step-by-step process of finding out who own a piece of land. I am thinking that the intention is that it is a person, not an entity in the Cayman Islands. That is a statement, not a question.