Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener, and thank you, Mr Balfour, for the namecheck. In the earlier session, I suggested an imaginary extra £10 million. It has doubled in the space of half an hour, and Mr Balfour is playing with an extra £20 million that does not exist.

I want to ask a wee bit about what is not in the survey. I get that there are data issues and massive restrictions on what you were able to collect and analyse. The Scottish child payment has been mentioned, and I had a wee look at it. The interim review of the Scottish child payment from July 2022 indicates that 16 per cent of people in receipt of or applying for—I am not sure which—the Scottish child payment at that point had a disabled person in the household. It might therefore be that we already have a benefit that supports those who live with disabilities, when there is a child in the household and the household is on benefits. In fact, that report suggested that, because 8 per cent did not want to say whether there was a physical or mental issue in the household, there could be underreporting and it could be that up to 24 per cent of Scottish child payments go to households with a disabled person.

Ms McFadyen suggested that the Scottish child payment has had an impact, but it might also have an impact on disabled families. I know that I am asking you a question about something that is not in the report, but was that on your radar at any point? It is quite a significant positive impact, but it also begs the question of what we are doing for households that are in poverty and where there is a disabled person but there are no children. I get that; it is about consistency of approach. Do you have any comments on that, Ms McFadyen?

That is very helpful. In other words, removing the Covid qualification presents an opportunity to provide clarity on what the other reasons for applying late might be. Do you agree with that, Vicki Cahill?

That is helpful. My understanding is that Social Security Scotland does not routinely collect data on households with disabilities claiming the Scottish child payment. Perhaps it has to improve its data collection on that. Do we know the split between disabled households that live in poverty and have children and those that do not have children?

That is very clear. I do not have any follow-up questions, because you have made your point eloquently. The committee will reflect on that.

Good morning, and thank you for supporting our evidence session this morning. This is a relatively straightforward—and, I think, non-contentious—question to start with. Different benefits have qualifying deadlines and cut-off dates for when people can apply. The bill seeks to repeal the Covid measures in relation to deadlines. Do the witnesses believe that, with that provision removed, there will still be sufficient flexibility for applying late or after the deadline for benefits?

I was impressed by our witnesses’ answers to Mr Balfour’s question about what more they would like to see in the bill. Ms Collie rightly called for greater financial support and greater consistency in that support across groups. Ms Cahill spoke about improved pathways, which would have a financial implication, although not as much as direct financial support. Of course, it is not for committee witnesses to say where that money would come from, and they should champion the corner of the people they represent. I am, however, conscious that the Scottish Government spends £1.1 billion more on entitlements for those who are vulnerable and needing support than it receives from the United Kingdom Government. Clearly, there is a divergence between the funds that are available to support those who need extra help and the extra help that is required because of the UK situation. Genuinely, I am not drawing you on any of that; it is just the context to my question.

What advice would you give to the Government or the committee? With the limited budget that we have, we and the Scottish Government have a difficult job in weighing up how to determine in what area to invest any money. If £10 million were to become available—Ms Collie, I am afraid that that is not the situation—some would argue that the Scottish child payment should be further increased, others would argue that the entitlements for that benefit should be increased and some would suggest spending it on a wholly different area, such as carers. How does the committee or the Scottish Government reconcile those competing demands? You should make those demands, and I would expect you to do so—and you do it so powerfully, passionately and persuasively—but how do we reconcile those tensions?

Good morning.

I will go back a little bit to dig beneath the statistics on performance and satisfaction. First, the good news is that although we are not there yet, both are improving, which is positive. I note, on performance, that ScotRail contends that two thirds of delays are for reasons that are outwith its control. Getting to 91.2 per cent compliance is positive, although of course we do not know what the figure is if we strip out, for example, failings with Network Rail, trespassing on the line and adverse weather. Should we report on performance, having stripped out matters that ScotRail is reasonably not able to deal with directly, in order to see what its performance is as Scotland’s national operator that is now in public control? I am not sure whether that is reported on anywhere.

It absolutely makes sense.

The current situation is that ScotRail is doing pretty well. It has to do better, and things are improving, but where statistics show a need to do better, it will sometimes be the case that Network Rail needs to do better, rather than ScotRail. Sometimes the cause of delay will be severe weather, and not ScotRail. It seems that it would make sense to have a performance statistic that was based on matters that ScotRail can directly control.

That is not just so that the numbers would look better for ScotRail. In a few years, Network Rail could be organised and do a lot better, with its performance improving. ScotRail’s performance could diminish, which could be masked by improved performance by Network Rail or by a particularly mild winter. How do we report so that we can hold Scotland’s national train operator to account—or commend it for improved performance, as is the current situation. Do we have any such stripped-out data reported consistently?

That is very helpful.

Mr Samson, before I move on to my next line of questions, I know that passengers just want trains to run on time according to schedule, and to get to where they want to go efficiently and in comfort. People here in Scotland like to get a seat more than people elsewhere in the UK do. We still have to improve the passenger experience, of course. What are your reflections on whose fault or responsibility delays are, or are you just focused on the overall passenger experience?

I mentioned Springburn station; this is not specifically about Springburn station, where I went for a site visit. On that visit, Scotland’s Railway was there—rather than Network Rail or ScotRail, so both were represented—as was Sustrans, Glasgow City Council and a local charity of which I am a trustee that is interested in town centre regeneration. The jury is out on whether the work will bring the positive outcomes that we all want, but there seemed to be much closer collegiate partnership working than I have seen previously. Are you aware that that is the case, Ms McLeod, or was I just fortunate on that particular day?