Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2074, lodged by Iona Stoddart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the funding that it provides to local councils, enabling them to deliver the best possible health and social care and help to protect the vulnerable, frail and elderly population from the closure of residential and nursing care homes.

We last considered the petition in March, when we agreed to write to COSLA and to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. The response from COSLA highlights increasing pressures on the sector and significant funding constraints on local government, which have made negotiations with the sector regarding the average cost of care particularly challenging. COSLA reiterates that

“it is the responsibility of individual local authorities to manage their own budgets and to allocate the total financial resources available to them, including on health and social care services, on the basis of local needs and priorities.”

COSLA intends to continue to press the Scottish Government on

“the importance of urgent additional funding”

so that local authorities can

“invest in social care and social work services.”

In his response, the Minister for Social Care and Mental Wellbeing states that the 2025-26 budget allocation to local government in Scotland saw

“one of the largest increases in funding in recent times and a real terms increase of 5.5 per cent.”

In relation to the impact of fiscal pressures, the minister indicates that the Government has been engaging with local leaders, the integration joint board chief financial officers and COSLA to gain a better understanding of the range of issues and consider how the pressures on social care can be managed. In addition, the minister points to the financial viability response group, which has developed a detailed risk register and has identified potential mitigating actions for the sector.

Do members have any comments as to how we might proceed?

You will be aware of the experience in Italy, which has had, for a long time, screening for those who are involved in sport, and it has led to an astonishing 89 per cent reduction in the number of young people who have subsequently died of cardiac failure. I take it that that is part of the subject of the review. That seems to be a compelling success story for that country, particularly for the families of those whose children are with us still, as opposed to elsewhere and here, where that is not the case.

It is sometimes difficult to quantify the numbers in relation to those who are screened, but it seems to me that screening places a premium value on the life of young people, particularly at an age when we know that they are more likely to engage in that kind of sport. The committee was very impressed with that.

I hope that the commitment on behalf of the UK Government does not prove to be a cross that you have to bear and subsequently repent in relation to.

On the basis of Mr Ewing’s recommendation, do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?

And potentially with his own MSP, because that does seem a little discourteous. Are we otherwise content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

The final continued petition for consideration today is PE2133, on which members will have received some late submissions. The petition, which was lodged by Andrew Wedge, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all cities in Scotland have a direct express rail connection to each other by expanding ScotRail’s Inter7city routes to include Scotland’s newest city, Dunfermline.

Again, we last considered the petition on 19 March. We wanted to find out whether the position of the proposal to reopen the Alloa to Dunfermline line for passenger services would be reviewed in the light of a significant housing development in the west Fife area. We also asked what consideration had been given to using existing connections to provide rail services linking Dunfermline with Glasgow and Stirling without the need to go to Edinburgh.

The response from Transport Scotland indicates that there remains a path for regional or local rail projects to come forward, subject to a strong business case and suitable funding. If sufficient future travel demand from west Fife is identified, Transport Scotland would consider that within the appropriately developed business case.

On the second point, the response explains that the railway in Fife is not yet electrified, so any direct services between Fife and Glasgow would need to run diesel trains on a mostly electrified route. That would have a negative impact on speeds and reliability. Transport Scotland suggests that the question of a direct service could be revisited once the partial electrification of the Fife route is more advanced.

Members may recall that the Scottish Government’s position on the ask of the petition is that it is reasonable, that it was given detailed consideration in recent years and that rail connectivity in Fife will be kept under review as travel patterns evolve.

Are there any suggestions for how we might proceed?

Item 4 is consideration of new petitions. As always, before we consider a new petition, I make the point to those following today’s proceedings that a considerable amount of work is done in advance of our consideration of petitions. Before a petition’s first consideration, we seek an initial view from the Scottish Government and receive a briefing from the Parliament’s independent research body, SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre. That information enables us to properly consider the issues raised by the petition. Previously, we used to meet and then suggest that those two things happen.

The committee is now looking to where we feel that we can make significant progress on behalf of a petition before the end of the parliamentary session.

Those two questions volunteer themselves, given that there is an interest in officials investigating those matters. There is progress that we could make on the petition in the time that is left to us in this parliamentary session.

I think that that is a perfectly reasonable thing for us to do. We will illustrate why the issue is important, again within the context of the review that might take place.

Are colleagues content to keep the petition open and proceed with the investigation on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.