Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

So, your aim is to continue to support farming in Scotland in the longer term, but you cannot give any guarantees until you have a guarantee on funding from down south.

Good morning, folks. I want to come back to Jason Leitch quickly, because I am slightly confused. The convener talked about her daughter being positive but not sick. Should she go to school or not?

That is because you are in your 50s.

Dr Witcher has used the hashtag #InclusiveNewNormal. I presume that, as Professor Bauld has just outlined, it is about how we make public spaces such as theatres safer. Work is on-going, but it will take more time. Until that is done and people feel that it is done, they will feel forgotten about. There is not much that we can do about that until we move on, is there?

If an adult has tested positive but has no effects, should they go to work?

I can imagine the analytical discussion that my wife and I will have about this when I get home.

I will go back to communication. The committee has heard that the Scottish Government’s review of the advice to those on the highest-risk list has not convinced people on the list that they are now at lower risk. Last week, we heard from Dr Sally Witcher, and one thing that I think struck all of us was that feeling that people are being left behind. How do we make life more liveable for people? I keep getting the wrong terminology. She was concerned about the fact that we use the word “vulnerable”, and I am not quite sure how we manage that language. How do we get people like Dr Sally Witcher to feel that society is now safe for them?

You have obviously read my notes.

My question is about the reasons for the two-dog limit above ground and the Scottish Government’s assessment of the different impacts that it might have on the ability to control wildlife, animal welfare, wild animal disturbances and the groups that carry out hunting with dogs and so on. What consideration did you give to the two-dog limit above ground? What were the assessments of the impacts of using two dogs as opposed to a pack?

If we consider the assessment from the point of view of an environmental group or a farming body, we heard throughout our evidence sessions that the use of more than two dogs as walked-up hounds will be essential for the welfare of not only the dogs but the fox that is being flushed, so that it is not going round in circles all day. Did you consider the welfare of the dogs and the fox when you put that number in the bill? Is it an arbitrary figure? How did you come to the conclusion that using two dogs is okay but using 12 dogs is not? There will be circumstances in which there is no other way of getting foxes out of particular cover but it will be essential to get them out because there is no other way of controlling them. Did you consider that? Where did the number come from?