Seòmar agus comataidhean

So, they are both responsible for the dog’s actions.

May I come back in on that, convener?

Okay.

I am sorry to labour the point about the definition of working in a pack. If there were four people with eight dogs, each of those four people had two dogs, and each of them could individually call back any dog that was within the area, would that be regarded as a pack or as four people working independently? Does that make sense?

Let me put that in the context of a shoot. If there are guys walking—whether or not they have guns in their hands—with eight dogs with the purpose of flushing prey, their dogs will work the ground while they are walking. That is called quartering. They will be quartering a particular bit of ground, and they will cross over one another and cross back again. If, at any time, a dog flushed anything that was running and the owner of that dog or the person who was working that dog whistled and the dog stopped to allow the prey to run, would that dog be deemed to be working individually to the owner or working in a pack when there are eight dogs on the ground at the same time? That issue is really important.

Are the two tied in, so that a driven shoot is exactly the same as a rough shoot for the purposes of the bill?

Thank you.

I am enjoying this, convener.

Professor McCartney, I would like to come to you. You mentioned that the issue that we are looking at goes back to the austerity policies of 2008. Are there data or studies that would say how far back health inequalities go in Scotland? What I am trying to find out is whether it is only since the crash in 2008, or does the problem go back further and we are living with a chronic long-term problem.

Good morning, and thank you for coming in. I have been sitting here listening last week and this week, and one of my questions is this: are we asking you the right questions for us to get to where we want to go? I think that you started to touch on that. Are we asking the right questions of the witnesses to enable us to get at what we are trying to work out, which is how we can get economically inactive people back into the workplace? Are we doing that?

For my last question, I will ask you the same question as I asked the previous panel. Are we asking you the right questions to get to what we are trying to find out in the first place?

I am glad that you mention that, because I am looking at some comments in, I think, Public Health Scotland’s submission. It says:

“Early evidence from the Glasgow City Region Intelligence Hub suggests the increase in retirement is due to lifestyle choices, ageist recruitment practices and changes in working practices. Socialising in the workplace”—

I go back to what was said about home working—

“was an element that kept people at work and due to the rise of home working, people have decided to leave the labour market.”

Given the need to get away from ageism and the importance of socialising in the workplace, do we need to rethink the ability or the requirement for people to work at home?