Chamber and committees

An analysis of the obtained from the two toxicology providers in Scotland – NHS Grampian which provides approximately 10% of the analysis capability and Glasgow University which provides the rest – is set out in the tables below.

It should be noted however that the extent of toxicological analysis required will depend on the individual circumstances of each case and the extent and nature of substances that are found. Factors such as the need to research the effects of unusual drugs or instruct separate analysis for insulin quantification will result in toxicological reports taking longer to be finalised. 

Additionally, in determining the final cause of death, completion of the toxicological report is only one part of a process which involves a number of separate organisations before a final post mortem report can be issued.

Depending on the circumstances surrounding a death, the pathologist(s) may require a number of further investigations to be completed – including further toxicological analysis as well as input from other experts in the fields of neuropathology or histopathology for example – and the findings of all those enquiries must then be carefully considered by COPFS before a cause of death is confirmed.

GU TOXICOLOGY TURNAROUND TIMES

NHS GRAMPIAN TOXICOLOGY TURNAROUND TIMES

In 2019 COPFS began to experience delays in the provision of toxicology reports from the University of Glasgow, the main contractor for this service. This was further compounded during 2020 due to the pandemic.

Once a toxicological report has been finalised, it is then considered by the pathologist(s) who conducted the post mortem, and thereafter a final post mortem report is issued to the appropriate team in COPFS, who require to review it in detail before the next of kin can be informed of the final cause of death.

Working with Glasgow University, COPFS put various measures in place to address both the backlog and the increasing number of new deaths requiring toxicological analysis. The measures included agreeing a new format of abbreviated report for some cases, and an Improvement Plan which set out weekly performance targets and ensured focused progression with both the backlog of cases and newly reported cases.

Successful implementation of the Improvement Plan in particular means that there is now no backlog of toxicology reports and toxicology analysis is being completed in the majority of cases within 8 weeks.

COPFS and the University of Glasgow agreed an Improvement Plan to reduce the toxicology waiting times. This plan defined performance targets and required the University of Glasgow to provide data to COPFS on a weekly basis. The required data was to highlight the laboratory’s progress with outstanding cases and new cases.

The Improvement Plan has been successful; the toxicology waiting times are now reduced and there is no delay in provision of those reports to the pathologists who require them to finalise the post mortem report.

An indication of the effectiveness of the improvement plan is that, in the week of 25 September 2020, there were 1351 open toxicology cases with University of Glasgow and in the week of 26 September 2021 there were 351 open toxicology cases.

Statistics on waiting times for Cleft Palate Surgery amongst babies is not held centrally by the Scottish Government or Public Health Scotland.

Information relating to the waiting time for Cleft Palate Surgery amongst babies could be requested from individual Health Boards.

Our approach to developing the Fund will mirror our just transition planning work. The Fund will be co-designed and co-delivered with those who stand to be most significantly impacted by the transition to net zero. This is likely to include, but not be limited to, community groups, workers and trade unions, businesses, business leaders and industry bodies and include input from academia and educators, and climate leaders, activists and thinkers.

As detailed in our response to the Just Transition Commission, a co-designed and co-delivered approach will ensure all partners are empowered to engage and that action is fair and co-ordinated. This means placing those most likely to be negatively impacted by the transition at the heart of our process. Empowering people to shape their future is essential in maintaining a strong social consensus for change, and will inevitably be a more robust and creative process of planning. It will also help ensure that all the Just Transition Plans are underpinned by diversity and inclusion. These principles of co-design and co-delivery will inform the way we define the parameters for the Just Transition Fund.

We have already initiated ongoing engagement with key stakeholders, including the new Just Transition Commission, trade union representatives and the Council of Local Authorities, on our approach to just transition. We also expect to launch a specific programme of engagement for the refreshed Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan at COP26 and we have committed to publishing a detailed review of this co-design process, informed by our engagement, following the development of that draft Plan. This will be supplemented by ongoing stakeholder engagement.

The Just Transition Fund will accelerate the energy transition of the North East and Moray regions, and will also support the role of Aberdeen and the wider north east as one of Scotland’s centres of excellence for the transition to a net zero economy.

As committed in Parliament, a draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan will be published in Spring 2022.

The Scottish Government recognises that well-managed grouse moors can produce favourable habitats for certain species such as curlews and that land managers have an important role to play in enhancing biodiversity.

As I set out in my response to question S6W-03211 on 20 October 2021 the Scottish Government commissioned Scotland’s Rural College and the James Hutton Institute to undertake extensive research into the biodiversity and economic Impacts of grouse moors and the findings of this research were taken into account when we developed our response to the Werritty review. The research found that whilst some land management actions undertaken on grouse moors could enhance biodiversity, the findings were clear that there could also be a negative impact resulting in species decline.

Our Statement of Intent on biodiversity notes that Scotland’s land delivers multiple benefits to people, providing homes and water supplies, producing food, timber and space for leisure, as well as supporting biodiversity. We have a distinctively strong connection between people, place and nature which makes Scotland special in terms of landscape and access. All landowners and managers have an important role to play in helping to improve the state of nature.

All of these factors will be taken into account when we publish our new biodiversity strategy in Autumn 2022 followed by an underpinning 5 year delivery plan, including changes in the way we use and manage land and our approach to protecting habitats and ecosystems. We have also announced that we will introduce a Natural Environment Bill in year 3 or the current session, which will include statutory, enforceable targets for nature restoration, and actions to deliver on our ambitious voluntary commitment to protect 30% of Scotland’s land and seas by 2030, with 10% highly protected. We will invest at least £500 million in the natural economy over the course of this Parliament, including £150 Million for forestry, ongoing investment in peatland restoration and multi-year funding for the Nature Restoration Fund.

All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/written-questions-and-answers

We published our response to the recommendations of the Grouse Moor Management Group, an independent group tasked by the Scottish Government with assessing the environmental impact of grouse moor management, on 26 November 2020 – Grouse Moor Management Group recommendations: Scottish Government response - gov.scot (www.gov.scot) .

And as we set out in 2021 Programme for Government we will – ‘deliver the recommendations of the Grouse Moor Management Review Group as a matter of urgency, including the licensing of grouse moors. Licensing or further regulation will cover the key areas identified in the review, including muirburn, wildlife control, he use of medicated grit and wildlife crime.’

A full public and stakeholder consultation will be undertaken as part of this process.

The decision to recommend the use of LFD tests for children, young people and staff in the event of having been identified as a low-risk contact was based upon expert public health advice and through engagement with the Covid-19 Education Recovery Group (CERG) and other partners. The decision was confirmed by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills on the 14 th September, following previous advice from Advisory Subgroup on Education and Children’s Issues (‘the subgroup’). The minutes of all the subgroup’s meetings are routinely published here .

The updated letter templates to inform staff, parents and pupils of whether they or their child have been identified as a low-risk contact were shared with local authority colleagues on 15 September, although it was made clear that they should be discussed with local health colleagues in each area, and amended where appropriate, prior to issuing to schools.

We know that PCR and LFD testing options play different roles in supporting us to control the virus:

• Lateral flow is useful for finding out if a person is infectious now, and able to transmit the virus to others. The level of sensitivity is high enough to detect the vast majority of these cases. Lateral flow testing is less likely to return a positive result outside the infectious window. Results from LFD testing are also available more quickly than PCR tests, which require to be sent to a laboratory. Therefore LFD testing is viewed to be more convenient for regular testing, and provides less disruption to peoples’ lifestyles.
• PCR is useful for confirming a suspected case of COVID-19, where the person is already self-isolating and is showing symptoms. Higher sensitivity of PCR means it can identify genetic material from COVID-19 even after the active infection has passed.

We have an ongoing and unwavering commitment to land reform, and to tackling the issues associated with the scale and concentration of land ownership. We will be introducing a new Land Reform Bill by the end of 2023, which will aim to ensure that the public interest is considered on transfers of particularly large scale land holdings. We also aim to introduce a pre-emption in favour of community buy-out where the public interest test applies, and where it is appropriate to do so.

In addition we are committed to doubling the funding available for communities to buy land and land assets through the Scottish Land Fund, to £20 million, by the end of this Parliament.

We will be undertaking a wide-ranging public consultation on proposals for the Bill in 2022, and we are committed to engaging with all stakeholders to develop policy and legislative solutions to progress our proposals.