A disability dog that could have been trained by other than the organisations stated would have meant that our legislation would have aligned with best practice disability assist dog legislation which exists in the US, in Canada, in Australia, and in the UK. All of these have a definition which enables the disability assist dog to be defined by its role, not by its training entity. Surely that is the key factor here: that the dog should be defined by the work that they are able to do, not by the training entity. That is in no way any criticism of the training entities that are listed; it is just saying that they should not have been constrained by who trained them.