I welcome the debate as an opportunity to scrutinise the work of Social Security Scotland and the devolution of benefits in Scotland. As others have said, we face significant problems with poverty, deprivation, deindustrialisation, poor growth and poor productivity in Scotland. We will not be able in the debate to lay out a strategy to deal with that situation.

However, I believe that we can use the debate as an opportunity to scrutinise what has happened in recent years and how social security is working in Scotland. The cabinet secretary and others are, of course, correct to make the point about mitigation; decisions that this Parliament has made to mitigate some of the inhumane policy decisions of the Westminster Government are part of the reason why social security benefits in Scotland are under strain and the budget is so high. The role of this Parliament is to ensure that the new significant social security benefits and budgets are properly spent and that support is provided to those who are most in need.

It is fair to say that all parties in the chamber have the expectation that Social Security Scotland will be significantly better than the Department for Work and Pensions, but as a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I would like to highlight some of the flaws that I believe exist in the design of the Scottish social security system, and which are becoming increasingly apparent.

Despite more than five years of a devolved social security system that was meant to be fairer than its UK predecessor, in-work poverty and deprivation levels in Scotland remain stubbornly high, with many of the problems that claimants highlight being very similar to those that were experienced when the DWP was dealing with similar benefits. Unfortunately, the cabinet secretary’s claim to have transformed the social security system in Scotland—I presume that she means the experience of claimants—is simply not borne out in reality.

For example, last week, my office was contacted by two constituents who were receiving daily communications by email saying that their payments would be stopped. Both cases were resolved when we intervened. However, I believe that that is an example of overreliance on systems sending out automatic computer-generated emails, which cause distress. On both occasions, the social security emails indicated that information had not been provided and that, therefore, benefits were being stopped. However, it was later accepted that, in fact, the information had been safely received.

There are also serious concerns about the over-budget and behind-schedule social security information technology system, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will respond to those concerns in her conclusions.

If we look at some of the most recent statistics that are available, it appears that processing times have worsened for several services, compared with previous years’ times. I note what the convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee said in relation to one specific benefit—it might be that she has information that I have not been provided with, yet. However, when we look at the data for the adult disability payment, which is a substantial benefit that takes up a substantial part of the budget, we see that the average number of days waiting for an application to be processed has increased. Between March 2023 and October 2023, the average waiting time for an adult disability payment to be processed was 104 working days. Over the same period for the year before, the application processing time was 37 days.

If there is more up-to-date information on any progress, it would be helpful if that could be provided. However, according to the most recent available data on the child disability payment, the average number of days for an application for it to be processed has also increased. Between January 2023 and September 2023, an application took 105 working days, which was longer than the previous timescale.

I am grateful for that, Presiding Officer, because—as you can see—time is progressing.

Similar information to the data that I set out is available in relation to the funeral support payment. However, I will look at what the committee convener said, because that information has not been provided formally as yet and, as she will be aware, I did not attend that particular committee visit. As she will also be aware—and as other members have highlighted in the debate—the turnaround times for some benefits are the same as, or have at times been worse than, DWP levels.

Labour members fully appreciate the financial pressures on the Scottish Government. As I said, most social security spend goes on the adult disability payment, and there are pressures. We strongly support new benefits that have been introduced, including the Scottish child payment. That specific measure is worthy of mention, because recent research suggests that it has been successful.

As a Parliament, however, we have to say clearly that we have high expectations of Social Security Scotland. It is not helpful for the Scottish Government to lodge self-congratulatory motions. We need a balanced debate, and some significant issues have been raised today. It is appropriate to raise those issues in the chamber, and I hope that, as we move forward, there will be a constructive debate as to how we ensure that what claimants receive in Scotland is at least as good as what they receive south of the border or—as most of us would hope—significantly better.

To ask the Scottish Government what consideration is being given to increasing the funding settlement for local authorities. (S6O-03069)

It is not only the Institute for Fiscal Studies that is challenging the Scottish Government’s figures; COSLA also says that local government is facing a real-terms cut, given significant cuts to both core revenue and capital budgets, and that using reserves is not financially stable. Its figures are confirmed by the Scottish Parliament information centre.

Will the minister revisit the funding settlement?

You are saying that you do not think that single-judge trials are the solution. Is there any solution if you believe that it is inevitable that conviction rates will be lower for rape? Is there anything that this Parliament should do to change how the process works in order to improve conviction rates, given that we know that there is a sufficiency of evidence in the cases that are taken forward by the Crown?

That is not what is being said. I have one final question. You said:

“There will, inevitably, be lower conviction rates”.

Are you saying that there will be similar conviction rates whether you have a jury or a judge-only case?

You referred to a conviction rate of 42 per cent. I appreciate that there are different ways of looking at that, but I will take that as the figure. We know that the figure is slightly, but not massively, higher in England, and that the conviction rate for rape is significantly lower than the rate for many other types of offence. I appreciate that many other cases will be summary cases, which will not involve juries, and that those are different, but you specifically made a parallel with other serious crimes, which is not an argument that I have heard being put to the committee before.

Will you elaborate on that? If you are saying that we are making the wrong comparison because we are comparing the conviction rate in rape cases with other forms of crime, what types of crime would make a fairer comparison? Would it be, for example, complex fraud or murder? What direction would you point us in, to look at those kinds of conviction levels?

Let us exclude them, then. What kind of cases do you think we should be comparing them with?

Surely, in a murder case, which is a very serious case, the Crown will proceed if there is sufficiency of evidence. That would be the test that it would apply in a murder case.

Is it generally the case that jury trials tend to lead to more acquittals than non-jury cases?