Chamber and committees

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.

Which is what?

I echo what you just said, Grant. There must be far more integration and the farming community must be taken along with that project.

At the moment, there are undoubtedly real tensions. I keep being sent articles that say that grazed land will sequestrate as much carbon as forestry or that trees will do more damage and it takes 25 years to get it back, for example. However, you are right that there is far more to the matter than carbon sequestration. What you and David Signorini said gives me some comfort that you will start to consider the matter much more holistically so that the farming community is part of the process, as opposed to it being a case of forestry against farming.

I asked David Signorini whether Scottish Forestry is able to allow farmers to plant orchards, which are far more open, on their farms. I know that it is not workable with the current system, but does Scottish Forestry have the power to integrate such planting on farms? We talk about regenerative farming and one of the things that we are supposed to be doing is ensuring that we have good woodland. We cannot just put it to the side and leave it as done. If there is an opportunity to be able to graze in between it and get another crop off it, that must surely be beneficial for a regenerative farming system.

Sorry, David—I am giving you a grilling here. How do you answer the accusation that Scottish Forestry is allowing private investors to greenwash the businesses that they run when they are not changing them?

I am afraid that you are getting another question. As somebody who knows nothing about fishing, it sounds a wee bit like the wild west out there.

You said that you were funded by the EU on a two-year project. How much was that funding, and who did you say you applied to afterwards for funding, when your application was refused? I missed that last bit.

Thank you.