Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks.

Will the member allow me to intervene?

I have been thinking about that point. In my Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which was about preventing attacks on livestock by out-of-control dogs, I pursued the potential for having a wider national database. At that time, however, we decided not to pursue it in the bill, in the knowledge that, down the line, current legislation would be revised. I agree with the minister that the bill that we are considering today is not the place for further microchipping legislation. We need to allow the process to take its course.

A lot of my questions have been answered.

I was just thinking about the gender identity healthcare services standards that were published by Health Improvement Scotland this month. I recognise that healthcare providers will be doing their best to provide the very best care. I am interested to hear your thoughts on those standards. What needs to be done with them? Which of them will be the most difficult to achieve? How we are doing at the moment? I am a nurse, so I know that we have been talking about how to deliver individual person-centred care for years, and that is obviously the goal of the standards. What needs to happen to ensure that they are achieved?

I have a final wee question. Ahead of today, in preparation, I was reading about how the system for people to access their GP works in Australia, Germany and other countries. There are opportunities for us to learn from approaches worldwide, looking at what works in other areas.

If GPs were to opt out from gender care, would that mean that we would miss young people who have neurodivergence or mental health issues? It is not just a black-and-white issue; this is about person-centred, total patient care and assessing individuals in a holistic way. We have been talking about a holistic approach. I am concerned that, if there were to be an opt-out, we would miss people who really need support with other conditions.

On the back of that, I understand that the process for monitoring how the standards are being implemented and delivered using a dispersed model and a tiered approach will involve self-assessment. Is that an acceptable approach?

Is that response based on work that is already being done in NHS reporting systems?

It was claimed that exit from the EU would reduce red tape. Do such challenges show that there is actually more red tape? That sort of thing should be sorted as a matter of urgency.

I have a wee final question. You mentioned 65 per cent. When people criticise tree planting, they talk about blanket Sitka, but the new guidance means that 65 per cent of the planting scheme would be conifer and the other 35 per cent would be native trees. Am I right that that is the current standard? It is not just blanket Sitka—it is a mix of native broad-leaf species as well as conifer.