Chamber and committees

The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) sets the legal obligations to monitor and assess a range of chemicals in the water environment.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) monitors the water environment for a range of contaminants of emerging concern (including 4 antibiotics, 1 antidepressant, and 3 antifungal medicines) at targeted watercourses. Through the WFD watch-list prioritisation mechanism environmental quality standards for a number of pharmaceuticals are currently being developed by the EU. This includes antibiotic clarithromycin, painkiller ibuprofen, anticonvulsants and painkiller carbamazepine, anti-inflammatory diclofenac and estrogen medication EE2 in this study.

SEPA is working with partner organisations on the identification of chemicals of emerging concern in the environment, and is developing new analytical techniques that will allow it to screen environmental samples for a much larger number of chemicals, including a number of pharmaceuticals. This work will allow us to better understand the risks posed by pharmaceuticals in Scotland’s water environment.

EU-wide research on the environmental risk posed by chemical substances informs the development of environmental quality standards These standards consider not only risks to animals, including fish, and plants that are exposed to these substances in water, but also risks to predatory animals like birds from the consumption of contaminated prey, so that the overall environmental quality standard is protective of all. The EU is currently developing new environmental quality standards for a number of contaminants of emerging concern, including certain pharmaceuticals.

The Scottish Government has made clear its commitment to maintain or exceed environmental standards in place upon EU exit, and to maintain alignment with developing EU standards, as far as possible.

The Scottish Government directs the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to use environmental quality standards to monitor and assess the water environment through River Basin Management Planning.

As we stated when we published our response to the independent Grouse Moor Management Group report (the ‘Werritty Review’) in November 2020 we recognise the important contribution grouse shooting makes to the rural economy.

Alongside the Werritty review, 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 to address some of the knowledge gaps regarding Scottish driven grouse moor management.

The research was carried out in two phases and the reports, which were published in 2019 and 2020 can found on the Scottish Government website at Socioeconomic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors in Scotland | SEFARI

and

Phase 2 Grouse Research - Socioeconomic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors and the employment rights of gamekeepers | SEFARI

The findings of this research, alongside other available evidence were taken into account when we developed our response to the Werritty review.

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.

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

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 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

Scottish Government officials are currently finalising options for Phase 3 of the Learning Estate Investment Programme and these will be considered by Scottish Ministers.

We expect to make an announcement on the timescales for Phase 3 before the end of this year.

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.