Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is exactly my point. I contest the view that The Sun article that quotes Professor Hugh Pennington is a fair way for the public to get that message, because they will hear “professor” and think, “He must know what he’s talking about,” but he is a professor of bacteriology.

The point that I am making is on messaging. We get the daily figures from the Government on the number of infections, the number of deaths and the number of people in intensive care units. It is clear that we have a problem with backlogs in cancer diagnosis and cancer treatments. I have spoken at the committee before about the heartbreak of some of my constituents. In relation to Government messaging, what would be the effect of starting to publish every day how many people were diagnosed with cancer, how many people are diagnosed with heart disease, how many people had had a stroke and how many deaths were caused by each of those illnesses? Would that make people less concerned about approaching the NHS to get themselves checked? I hope that we will start to catch up on some of the latent disease that is clearly lying in the community.

Thank you.

Could I come in before you go to Professor Leitch? I do not dispute the fact that the Government has put that data out there, and I do not dispute that the Government has modes of allowing people to understand what is going on, but every day we talk about Covid deaths and hospitalisation. It is clear that that has created a behaviour in our society that says, “Covid—we must react to and deal with that.” We do not have the same level of reaction to cancer or any of the other diseases that kill people in large numbers every year in Scotland. My question is, do we need to change our behaviour to get the community to say, “This is as dangerous or more so than Covid”? It is about changing that message. If we presented daily figures and said, “This is the number of people who died of cancer today,” it might have the same effect.

My colleague Alex Rowley has quoted Hugh Pennington twice. He is a highly regarded emeritus professor of bacteriology. We have had advice that improving ventilation in schools could be as easy as cracking open a door. If the Government was looking for advice on how to maximise the ability to keep ventilation right, would it go to a professor of bacteriology?

I am awfully glad that you clarified that prior point—I am probably more cautious than normal.

I will direct my question to Iain Gulland and Kirsteen Shields, if that is okay. You might have covered this, but what are your views on the practical role of public authorities in securing environmental outcomes in relation to the good food nation?

This has been a fascinating session, folks. Thank you very much for your input. I have really enjoyed it and have taken a lot out of it.

I would like to explore the role and responsibility of the private sector in a good food nation with regard to delivering the public health outcomes and whether the bill and the plans under it can support and enable the private sector to play a positive role. I would include food producers in that.

One of the things that I have had difficulty with in all our sessions is the fact that there seems to be a dichotomy—we want to have environmental protections, we want to protect biodiversity and we want farmers to be able to continue to produce food locally with short supply chains, but we also have massive food inequalities in this country. How do we get everyone in the private sector to recognise that dichotomy and work together so that they can be part of a good food nation?

Isabel—can we start with you, if that is okay? Sorry about that.

Do you mean that? [Laughter.]

This question is for Iain Gulland. Are you suggesting that all local authorities should work collaboratively to the same plan and that we should, in effect, have one national local plan, if that makes sense?