Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will be brief because I have to go to the chamber, but I will comment on my use of the word “fraudulent”. Christmas is coming up, and if someone who is 18, 19 or 20 is going out with their mates and they do not feel bad but their test comes up positive, they might just chance their luck because they feel okay. I have a genuine concern about that. That has always been my concern about going down this road.

Yes—we should not demonise that age group.

Yes. My question is for Susan McKellar. You sent a questionnaire out to 4,000 people but got only 100 responses. I am not disputing the fact that we have to get our messaging better, but did you get 100 respondents who did not get the grant, although 500 did? How would you know how many people are not getting it? In Aberdeen, there were 3,234 respondents and a 54 per cent success rate. That is not high enough—I accept that—but why was your response rate so low?

As I said, I know that we have been over the issue before, but it is worth re-emphasising.

I want to come back to Michael Clancy on the point that he just made. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 was brought in following the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 to prevent people’s access to the countryside and farms. Is that a UK act, and does the Scottish Government have any access to it? Is it reserved or can the Scottish Government use it?

You have raised something that I had not thought about. I had never heard of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. I assumed that the act was about foot and mouth when you said that it was from the early 2000s.

The 2004 act is there, and we currently have the Coronavirus Act 2020. I go back to what you said about the need to look at having some sort of public emergency act after this is all done and dusted. Coronavirus has affected not only people’s health. Should we have looked at a broader picture and used the 2004 act? The pandemic has affected business, freedoms, poverty and every aspect of society. Would it not have made more sense to use the 2004 act, which relates to civil contingencies, rather than creating an act that relates to health?

I apologise for being an absolute pedant here, but if we had gone down the route of using the 2004 act, would it not have been the same principle that those powers would have been devolved for the period of time to allow the devolved Administrations to use them?

I will talk about vaccine uptake and where there is a bit of hesitancy. My points come from questions that members of the public have put to the committee.

A number of people have been in touch about women’s reproductive health and the vaccine. Some are asking whether fertility is impacted in any way by having the vaccine. I know that we have covered that before but, if we are getting the questions, it is clear that the message still has not got out to some individuals.

Others have asked whether breastfeeding women will be eligible for the booster vaccine, and whether health and social care partnerships and midwives have appropriate information and training on eligibility for the vaccine. Parents have highlighted that there is inconsistency of knowledge and understanding in HSCPs across Scotland in relation to breastfeeding and vaccine eligibility.

Finally, I have a constituent who is very concerned about getting the vaccine because she is on cancer drugs. I ask Jason Leitch to comment on that.

You mentioned hedgerows. Do you include hedgerows in the baseline carbon audit of a farm?

Sorry, convener—I thought that other members of the panel were going to come in.

I want to touch on the farming community. My question is probably to all four witnesses, who will be aware of the tensions between forestry and farming. I constantly hear that it is either forestry or farming, but not both. A lot of the questions that are put to me are about the science behind the carbon storage of forestry as opposed to naturally grazed land. The buying power of forestry is pushing the price of hill land up beyond its current levels, which makes it absolutely unbuyable for farming. What work has been done by the forestry industry to get to grips with the integration of farming and forestry, so that the two things can work together and cohabit?

Is it true that Forestry Scotland is enabling greenwashing in Scotland? Is it the case that when private investors come in, we lose the value of that natural capital in Scotland?

This question is probably just for David Signorini. Are you able to help farmers who want to plant orchards? Although I know that it is outwith the scope of the current forestry plan, is there a way for you to bring in orchards so that farmers can grow trees and still get a crop out of the land and can potentially graze it as well?

I know that there is a lot in there, but that is a constant theme that comes back to me in the farming community in which I live.