Chamber and committees

Thank you. I suspect that, in my eagerness to lobby my own Government in a public committee session, I lost focus on what my question should have been, so—with apologies to the convener—I will go back to it now.

How do we monitor, on an on-going basis, the impact of the cost of living crisis on families who are struggling? What process would the Government carry out around that? As a committee, we would be keen to know what more you would prioritise doing.

But can you confirm that income—not just price—is a key aspect?

But we have just spent 10 to 20 minutes talking about affordability, and it was not a moot point then. I agree with everything that you have said. Other members will ask questions about the issue that you have raised, and you will be able to put your points on the record. I will support you when you do so. I totally get the point that you are making, but you are not answering the question that I asked.

I will make one more attempt to ask the question. If you do not want to answer it, that is okay. I am not trying to be rude; I am simply trying to elicit some information that would be helpful to the committee in its inquiry.

The inquiry is about how transport plays a role in child poverty and parental employment. Is the money that is provided by the DWP and the Scottish Government being used strategically, and well enough, in your opinion? That is a reasonable question.

Mick Hogg, do you want to add anything?

Thank you, convener. It is great to be back on the committee. I have no relevant interests to declare, but, as always, I invite those who wish to do so to look at my register of interests.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

I want to put on record my thanks to Paul Finch for bringing us back to the focus of the inquiry, which is child poverty and parental employment. I absolutely get that all three witnesses have been talking about affordability, the quality of the service and the safety of female travellers—a whole variety of things—but the focus of the inquiry is child poverty and parental employment. There are lots of factors in relation to transport in that inquiry.

I again need to put on the record the fact that we could do more on that if, rather than a national minimum wage, we had a real living wage, which would make fares more affordable. I must also say that 69 per cent of children living in poverty are in working households where at least one person is working and that 80,000 children in Scotland are impacted by the United Kingdom Government’s two-child benefit cap.

Before I come to the substantive questions, may I ask the witnesses whether they believe that ending the two-child benefit cap and moving from a national minimum wage to a real living wage would represent a substantive move towards making transport more affordable for parents who are trying to get into work or get more hours in their working day?

Mr Finch, I do not know whether you will be drawn on that, but I would not be doing my job properly, as an MSP for constituents who are directly impacted by this, if I did not ask the question: would those measures make a difference to the affordability of transport?

I do not think that that is an answer. Mr White, do you have anything to add?

My final question is for Mr Hogg, because Mr Finch and Mr White cannot speak for individual bus operators but Mr Hogg can talk from years of experience of the workforce within the railways.

One issue is that we want to have trains that run later, start earlier, or run more frequently. That all comes down to cost but it also comes down to supporting workers’ pay and conditions. Have there been discussions between ScotRail and the RMT about how we could run trains a bit earlier, or later, in a way that is affordable? There will be additional staff costs, but have we started thinking about how we can reshape the railways to be more responsive in supporting children in poverty and parental employment?