Seòmar agus comataidhean

The SAWC report also said that independent tracks might have “some social benefit”. I am not sure whether that was intended to mean social benefit for the dogs or the humans. Can you say whether you view the independent track that remains as having a social benefit? How do you understand that and what do you make of that bit of the report?

I am conscious that there are people in the room who know more about this issue than I do, but I want to ask about the rehoming of dogs. Is it your feeling, on the evidence that you have had, that racing is creating a problem—that is, the rehoming of dogs—that is being left to society to solve?

Is that sustainable going forward? Are the costs and welfare issues around the need to rehome acceptable? Should we allow it?

Thank you.

How do we balance that with animal welfare and which, no pun intended, is top dog?

There will be people in Scotland—and we have heard from them—who race dogs at commercial English tracks. I presume, then, that they will be part of the process of commercial racing that results in dogs perhaps needing to be rehomed, and not all of those dogs will be socialised enough for that. This is a provocative question—I am just looking for your view on it—but are these people not creating a problem that is being left to others to sort out?

I have a quick question about licensing. The focus of our conversation has been very much about the potential licensing of tracks but have you thought about the licensing of kennels? If so, what would that mean?

The convener has touched on the point that there are quite a lot of cross-party groups out there. Would you consider occasional joint meetings with some of the other groups that you have mentioned, as a way round that challenge? I know that other cross-party groups have tried to do that, to avoid stretching MSPs too thinly every time there is a meeting.

Amendment 192 seeks to provide additional clarity regarding the persons in respect of whom ministers may make regulations relating to continuing professional development.

To pick up on Richard Leonard’s point, stakeholders have queried the meaning of “farmers” in section 27(1)(a) and have asked whether that would include or exclude farm workers and other persons—in particular, family members—who contribute to activities on the farm or in the business. By proposing to expand section 27(1) to include

“persons who work in agriculture (whether as employees or otherwise)”,

I seek to clarify that provision and ensure that we do not leave behind anyone who is making a contribution in agriculture, while providing ministers with flexibility in relation to the design of CPD.

I am making a point about the timings for stage 2. I accept the point that you are making, convener—I am not disputing that. I am saying that perhaps the more urgent question is how we get through stage 2. We need guidance from you on when our sittings will be. That is the more pressing question.