Chamber and committees

Today’s debate has highlighted the urgent need for the dangerous dogs legislation to be updated. I know that the Scottish Government has done work on that, and I hope that a bill will be introduced sooner rather than later, because dog attacks in Scotland have risen by 80 per cent in the past decade. Even in the past year, dog attacks on postal workers have increased by 15 per cent.

How I will vote today will be determined by the attacks that have taken place recently, some of which have been horrific. I will vote against the motion, not because I think that the statutory instrument that is before us is well drafted or represents the solution, but because I think that it will address some of the problem. I therefore feel that I have no choice other than to support it, for community safety reasons.

I hope that the point that Christine Grahame made so powerfully about the quality of the legislation that we pass is taken on board by the Scottish Parliament, because it is one that is made repeatedly. From what the minister has said, I understand that the provisions have been defined in the way that they have simply to mirror the approach that is being taken down south. I question whether that is the right approach. However, that is what is in the statutory instrument that we have in front of us. We cannot amend it. If we reject it, it will be some time before more proposals come back. On that basis, I feel that I have to support the Scottish Government position today.

On the timetable, the order will come into effect on 23 February if it is passed, but, from 1 August, it would be an offence to own an XL bully dog. Will you clarify the timetable for when law-abiding citizens would be guilty of an offence? When would that impact?

I think that you have covered it.

The minister said that the definition is on the UK Government website, but can you refer me to any definitions in relation to younger dogs? That has been a live issue down south.

I understand that we have to look at a UK website for the definition that will come into effect later this week.

It will be on the Scottish Government website. Will any guidance regarding young dogs be in place later this week so that the owners—citizens—can know what they are supposed to do, or do we have to wait for that?

My question relates to the formal status of the DEFRA guidance, which is of course not referred to in the order. As Christine Grahame said, good law is clear law. We can expect that, in the criminal courts, defence agents will dispute whether a particular dog is an XL bully and will argue that it is not. Christine Grahame mentioned DNA testing. Can you confirm what the formal status of the DEFRA guidance is? Is the intention to continue to rely on guidance of that nature once the second SSI comes forward or will something more substantial be put together? How will that be clarified in relation to how the courts will interpret the legislation?

England is obviously ahead of us. Do you know whether any cases have been taken through as yet?

One of the recommendations of “The Hughes Report” is to improve access to disability benefits for transvaginal mesh survivors. What action is the Scottish Government taking to improve access to social security benefits for those who are adversely affected by transvaginal mesh or by hernia mesh? The minister recently met some of my constituents who are directly affected.

The minister and his colleagues have made that point on numerous occasions and on numerous occasions it has been made clear that the Scottish Labour Party is opposed to the two-child cap and that there will be a review of the entire universal credit system under the next Labour Government. I make it clear to the minister that the Scottish Labour Party and Labour representatives will fight for a system that supports the most vulnerable.

Despite five years of a devolved social security system that was meant to be fairer than its predecessor, the reality is that, in many circumstances, claimants are not receiving a better service. The costs of our social security system have increased, but in-work poverty and deprivation levels remain stubbornly high, and the Scottish Government does not seem to have a plan to deal with the spiralling social security costs.

There has been a 38 per cent increase in social protection spending in Scotland, and it is right that we evaluate how well that money is being spent. As I said, the Scottish child payment seems to be an effective new benefit. However, many of the other benefits simply mirror those that existed previously. It is not acceptable that more than 50,000 Scots are being asked to wait more than three months for disability benefits. That is what we should debate. The increase in working-age poverty in Scotland over the past decade has been the highest anywhere in the UK. That is what we should debate.

Members around the chamber have high expectations for the social security system in Scotland. We expect far better than what Westminster has delivered in recent years.

There is no doubt that Scotland needs change. That will be the focus of the next general election campaign. In this chamber, week after week, our focus needs to be on making sure that the powers that we have are used effectively and that we maximise the benefits, particularly for the most vulnerable and poorest in our society. That will be Scottish Labour’s focus.

I welcome the fact that the Parliament is, yet again, discussing social security. John Mason was correct to point to the importance to the debate of our taxation policy, and Paul O’Kane was absolutely correct to say that our attitude towards growth and the drive for growth are central to the debate.

We most recently debated social security on 7 February, which was the week before we went into recess. I yet again question the framing of this debate and the focus on independence—it seems to be the focus of much of the Scottish Government’s work—particularly given the significant issues that we see in Social Security Scotland, which seem similar to those in the Department for Work and Pensions.

Scottish Labour supported the devolution of social security benefits and the mitigatory action that the Scottish Government has taken to address certain aspects of Westminster policy. We are strongly supportive of measures such as the Scottish child payment, which we believe to be effective. However, we are very concerned about the length of time that it has taken to transfer some of the benefits and about the waiting times for benefits such as the child disability payment, for which the median waiting time was 106 days in the most recent statistics, and the adult disability payment, for which the median processing time was 83 days. Yet again, it would be better if the Scottish Government and, indeed, SNP MSPs could devote their energy to taking action to reduce those waiting times and making it very clear that such waiting times are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

As has been said, the outcomes of applications are often similar to or, on occasion, worse than those under the Department for Work and Pensions. We supported the devolution of social security benefits to improve outcomes and the service for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Scottish Labour will not tolerate outcomes and waiting times that are similar to or, indeed, worse than those of the Department for Work and Pensions, which has been under considerable political pressure from the UK Tory Government to reduce payments and provide an unsympathetic environment for people who seek benefits.