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.

Given everything that Pauline McNeill said about previous experience, cabinet secretary, do you not accept that we need clarity in the black letter of the law? It does not matter what politicians’ intentions are, and it does not matter what assurances or correspondence there is with the committee—what matters is what the law will be.

If you are going to set up a separate court, there need to be clear rights. The alternative would have been to have specialist divisions of the sheriff court and the High Court and many people would argue for that. They could work differently from the way things are at the moment, with their own rules of court. However, you have chosen this pathway, so you must surely accept that there must be absolute clarity in the black letter of the law that the rights of those involved will not in any way be reduced. Does the cabinet secretary accept that?

I am quite happy to have a yes or no answer. What do you see as success and failure?

Based on her research, Professor Cheryl Thomas told us that jury conviction rates for rape cases in England and Wales ranged from 65 per cent to 91 per cent, depending on the age and sex of the complainer, whether the offence was historical and a range of other factors.

Yesterday, the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association told us very clearly that solicitors do not feel that the many issues affecting rape cases are necessarily due to use of juries. Rape survivors who have spoken to us have not raised the issue of juries. I appreciate that there is not one view and that different people have different experiences, but the main issues that rape victims repeatedly raise when they speak about the re-traumatising effect of the process are how they are treated, the massive problem of delay in the system—which also relates to the issue of the floating diet—and outcomes, including whether there is a conviction and what the sentence is.

Do you accept that survivors, victims and complainers do not seem to identify juries as being a significant problem, but that other issues and concerns seem to be raised repeatedly?

Cabinet secretary, you said that the evidence was clear on the impact of removing the not proven verdict on the number of convictions, but the evidence that we have heard is far more mixed. We were not aware of the metadata evidence that you mentioned to Pauline McNeill, but we were aware of the other Scottish mock jury research to which we have been directed.

The views that we have heard from the various witnesses who have come to speak to us are far more complicated, as, I am sure, you are aware. Witnesses have also told us that it is not possible to provide a breakdown of whether jury decisions were unanimous or majority or to provide exact numbers and a breakdown of outcomes from juries. Would it not be sensible to get that data before we make significant changes to jury majorities in the Scottish system? There is a dispute over whether we can do that legally in Scotland, and legislation has been passed down south to enable that kind of research to take place. Would it not be sensible to have a better understanding of what happens now before we make really significant changes to the system?

I have spoken to the cabinet secretary previously about independent legal representation beyond what is proposed in the bill. Given that she has been to Norway and various other jurisdictions that have more extensive rights of advice and representation for victims, has she any reflections on that?

But you will go there.

I do not think that there is any suggestion that the outcomes of individual cases would be publicised; we are talking about research across the board so that we can begin to understand trends and what is actually happening. I know that we are short of time, but it is surprising that we are not trying to get a firmer evidence base. The cabinet secretary says that the evidence is clear, but that is not what other witnesses have said to us, as I am sure that she has seen.

You have to accept that politicians will presume that there might be a cost-cutting agenda here, because that was the experience in the past. Pauline McNeill has outlined one example of that, and there are others.