Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am trying to get a baseline for what members and the travelling public would consider to be the appropriate frequency of ScotRail services. I am conscious that frequency on many routes was reduced during Covid and that it has not returned, because passenger numbers have not returned to pre-Covid levels and income has fallen.

I must declare an interest as I use my local line—Glasgow to Anniesland via Maryhill—almost daily. The service used to be every 30 minutes but, because of Covid, it is now hourly outside of peak times. I am sure you will appreciate that having an hourly service creates a tipping point; if a train is cancelled or delayed, there is a hefty wait for the next one. I have a local interest in that particular line, but my question is about aspiration and commitment. Without giving a period of time in which you hope to achieve it, can you say whether we will return to pre-Covid frequency of services? That is what my constituents would expect—although not right away.

I am not querying—as Mr Lumsden did—whether it was correct to take the railways into public ownership; I strongly support that move from the Scottish Government.

Here is what I am getting at. There was previously no Sunday service on the Maryhill line, for example, but when the service was franchised out, I persuaded the winners of the franchise to write that into their bid. We now have that service, and that is a positive thing. A service every 30 minutes was written into the pre-Covid franchise agreement, and it is clear that that is socially desirable, for a variety of reasons. I am now looking to ascertain whether there will be a return to that desirable outcome when finances allow.

The situation will be the same in many parts of the railway, even though it has been transferred into public ownership. Some people will be sitting around the table with a spreadsheet, asking where we can make savings. We need to ensure that we do things differently in the public sector, and that we do not make savings on train lines where that might be economically expedient but not socially desirable. It is socially desirable for services to go back to pre-Covid baseline levels at some point. That is what I am trying to flush out.

I genuinely was not pushing the issue at a constituency level, convener—it was just a helpful example. Thank you.

Cabinet secretary, I do not see how we can scrutinise the Scottish budget and not ask specifically about the £457 million for the Scottish child payment in the coming year. I know that it benefited more than 300,000 children in the previous year. However, money that is spent on that is money that is not being spent on something else. It is welcome spending, but it has to be evidence led.

In our parental employment inquiry, we heard that modelling work for the Scottish Government has child poverty at 19 per cent. I understand that the real figures that are available for Wales showed 28 per cent, and perhaps 31 per cent for England. That appears to be evidence that the investment is paying off. Can you give us the latest update on the impact of that £457 million on tackling child poverty?

If I have time I will come back with another supplementary, but I will look to the convener on that.

The committee might take a view on the support that the UK Government should be giving, but we can perhaps discuss that in private session when we consider the evidence that we have heard.

Given our time constraints, this will be my final question. In your opening remarks, cabinet secretary, you mentioned support for Ukrainian refugees. There was a time-limited £10 million commitment, which is no longer there. Can you explain the Scottish Government’s thinking on that and put on record what support will be available in the coming financial year?

Of course, I am not going to not support the instrument, but best start foods is sometimes seen as a poor relation when it comes to investment in supporting children and families across Scotland, so it is important to put on the record that, since their inception, the best start grant, which is given in cash, and the best start foods scheme, which gives voucher support—in effect, pre-paid cash support to children and families—have benefited more than 400,000 people with £105 million, £17.3 million of which has benefited people in Glasgow, including my constituents.

If the instrument passes, an additional 20,000 children and families will benefit. I know that it makes a real difference. The committee would be wise sometimes to hear directly from the lived experience of people who receive such grants, in order to see the focused difference that they make on the ground. I just put that on the record.

In addition, the regulations have value for women who are pregnant in removing the income threshold on qualifying benefits. Every four weeks, they will receive £19.80—or £36.90 during their child’s first year. That is the most generous and supportive series of grants anywhere in the United Kingdom. In the round, the five grants will see children in Scotland receive an additional £10,000 by their sixth birthday. At the heart of it, the best start foods scheme makes a laser-like focused difference to some of the poorest and most vulnerable children in Scotland.

Sometimes, the passing of such instruments goes completely unnoticed. This instrument extends the entitlement to an additional 20,000 children and is a £6 million investment. It is important to put such things on the record, because they involve public money for public benefit, and this will really deliver.

I have a follow-up question, but perhaps you could reply in writing to save the wrath of the convener and to save your voice.

Ironically, we invest more in the Scottish child payment, but when better-off calculations are done for parents who may be trying to get back into employment and off universal credit, there is a cliff edge as that financial support is taken away. That is an unintended consequence, but it is a consequence nonetheless. What is the Government’s thinking about how to smooth out that cliff edge? I know that that would require money to taper benefits as people move off universal credit and back into full employment. That may be something that the committee will have to look at in the months to come.

I have no more questions. The specific £10 million seems to be part of a larger global spend, and there is a connection between UK Government commitments and Scottish Government responsibilities. It would be helpful to get clarity on that in writing.

Cabinet secretary, you will be aware that Glasgow has declared a housing emergency, largely as a consequence of the UK Home Office fast-tracking asylum and refugee applications, which has led to hundreds of decisions—hopefully positive ones for many people—being made at the same time, which has put huge pressure on homelessness services in the city. That lets down refugees and other homeless people in the city. There is also a wider issue with homelessness and refugees across Scotland. What additional funding is the Scottish Government providing to local authorities to address homelessness among refugees?

Cabinet secretary, to rewind a little, part of Mr Macpherson’s line of questioning was about speeding up the consent process and about local authorities going quicker in relation to that. I am conscious that, for larger projects, decisions are made at a national level, and the energy consents unit would deal with a lot of those. I see in my briefing paper that the fees regime should make the running of that unit cost neutral. How do we make sure that the process is also cost neutral for local authorities and that they are appropriately staffed with the correct expertise to speed the process up? I imagine that there are a lot of up-front costs in resourcing local authorities to do that. How does the budget secure the investment in local authorities that they will undoubtedly need?