Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that Jacqueline Brown answered this earlier, but I have a technical question to ask. You said that there is no vet in attendance at Thornton and you went through a list of things that would be checked at a regulated track. Does a complete vet check always happen before animals race at a regulated track?

I think that you have answered this question already. Are you saying that, if somebody turns up with a dog that is, for one reason or another, unfit to race or is found to be doped or some other thing that you highlighted earlier, there is no consequence to the person and that it is not the case that they are not allowed to race again? Is there no legislation in place that would stop such people from racing dogs as a result of such a misdemeanour?

I will make one very brief observation. Surely, a vet who is not comfortable with racing would be a far better vet to be at a greyhound track than a vet who is pro-racing, because they would be looking for such problems.

I will say one final thing. Jacqueline—you are surely not saying that only royals should keep greyhounds. [Laughter.]

We have been asked whether we want to continue the petition and take stakeholder evidence. Does that turn this into an inquiry rather than a continuation of the petition? That is a daft-laddie question from a new parliamentarian.

I am sorry—I have gone right back to the convener’s opening questions. Why were the public health powers not included in the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 when England and Wales already had those powers?

That would emphasise the point that we need to update our statute book.

I will very quickly ask about the moratorium on diligence. At the moment, the bill does not contain provision on a moratorium, but the Scottish Government has stated that amendments on that subject might be lodged at stage 2. Does the Government intend to lodge amendments on the moratorium on diligence at stage 2? If so, has the Government reached a view on how long the moratorium should last?

The provisions in part 3 of the bill mainly enable public service providers to offer remote services, rather than requiring them to provide them. Local authority witnesses highlighted the success of remote service delivery during the pandemic and the potential for resource savings. Will the Scottish Government consider amending the bill to include a requirement to continue to offer in-person services?

That is my point. I absolutely get that we can make things far more streamlined and all the rest of it, but there will be times when people want to have a sit-down conversation in a face-to-face environment. That is something that we should consider.

We also took evidence on mental health in relation to the named person. We are short of time, so I will quickly go through the points that have been raised.

How should people be informed about the role and responsibilities of being a named person? Is additional guidance needed on the role and responsibilities of being a named person? Should a nominee be required to declare that they understand the role, and the rights and responsibilities, of being a named person?