You mentioned that you had received letters. In a letter, Michael Gove MP warned that Scotland could become a “dumping ground” for XL bullies and raised concerns that it had not yet been possible to secure equivalent protections in Scotland. What engagement did you have with the UK Government? How many meetings and phone calls did you have?

I will go back to a couple of things that you have just said. You mentioned the announcement on 15 September and said that there had been no communication with the Scottish Government. I am under the impression that, on 15 September, when the UK Government made the announcement, UK officials were also in contact with Scottish Government officials.

You also mentioned that 21 September was the first meeting of the working group. Again, I am under the impression that Scottish Government officials were part of that working group and that they helped to come up with the definition and conformation of the dog breed. You said that you have had no communication, but I am under the impression that Scottish Government officials were involved from the day of the announcement and that every letter that you received asked for meetings with the Scottish Government and for you to be involved, because the UK Government wanted it to be a joint approach, so that there would be none of the loopholes that you are talking about.

I am also under the impression that the loopholes have been created because there has been no engagement on the matter with the UK Government from the Scottish Government. It is the lack of legislation in Scotland that has created the loophole. That happened because we did not put the legislation in at the same time.

You may have engaged with stakeholders, but you have chosen not to engage at all with ministers in Westminster.

I am wondering about the loophole, as it was highlighted that it could have been an issue. If you had engaged with UK ministers, would you have expected the UK Government to legislate for crimes that might be committed in Scotland? I would have thought that that would come under our remit. At the moment it seems that, if somebody rehomes a dog, abandons a dog or does not register a dog, that is an offence in England and Wales. I think the UK Government said that, if somebody then came to Scotland with their dog, those would not be offences in Scotland, so it could not legislate for that. Would you have expected the UK Government to legislate for something in Scotland? Is that not why the UK Government was trying to engage with you, so that you could put something in place here?

I welcome the minister’s answer to Colin Beattie.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation Scotland has a flagship policy that calls on the Scottish Government to allow trained local deer stalkers to carry out deer management on publicly owned land. It will enable a sustainable food source to be harvested, processed and consumed locally; protect the environment; drive and improve economic productivity; and enhance community knowledge of deer impacts and benefits.

Will the minister implement BASC’s community deer management proposals as part of addressing the significant challenges of deer legislation in this parliamentary session?

The delay to treatment centres in Ayr and across Scotland is unacceptable, especially given that Carrick Glen was already a working private hospital. The former health secretary, now the First Minister, announced the treatment centre at Carrick Glen just before the local elections, but, yet again, we have a broken promise from the Scottish National Party that will have serious consequences for people who are in agony and waiting for treatment from our NHS.

Some people in Ayrshire think that it was just another election gimmick. Can the cabinet secretary promise that the treatment centre in Ayrshire will not be scrapped altogether, and what does he have to say to people waiting for treatment, such as my constituent who urgently needs surgery, without which he will be unable to continue caring for his wife?

Thank you. We note that part of the management response to the annual audit report refers to the spending of more than £77,000 for one person to attend a training course abroad, which was mentioned earlier, as “an oversight”. The governance framework between the commission and the Scottish Government appears to make it quite clear that the commission was required to obtain approval for that spend, as set out in its delegated financial authorities. Do you know why that situation occurred?

It was a very expensive oversight. At the time that it was highlighted, did the commission carry out any internal investigation into its processes and procedures? Did it investigate why that happened in the first place and why it had spent £77,000 on a course for one person?

I take it that you would have expected the Scottish Government sponsorship team to be aware that the chief operating officer of a relatively small organisation was attending a training course abroad. Does the Scottish Government sponsorship team monitor the activities and engagements of key personnel in the organisations that it sponsors?

It is unusual for public funds to be used for gifts. Do you know when that practice first began and whether it was ever highlighted to management as part of the previous audit work?

Was that a result of a lack of skill or training in the organisation? Whoever was giving out the gift vouchers should have known that there would be a tax implication.