���˿���

Okay. In the exchange with the convener about what was in the tender for the two ferries that will shortly be completed, the convener made the point that we are paying more and getting less. I want some clarity around that.

David, you said that the tender was for up to 1,000 seats but that it did not have to be 1,000 seats. Can you confirm what was in the original tender document? Also, if I can roll all this together, you said that the number of seats was reduced to 926 because of other work that had to be done on fire safety, evacuation and different things, but your client requested 852 seats. I just want to be clear that the client is still getting the seating capacity that it requires and that, technically, there is some flexibility to add a small amount of additional seating if need be. Have I captured that correctly?

I am not pushing anything. I am happy to be told I am wrong.

That is fine. Is the overall tonnage the same? What I got from your exchange—and this is what I want clarity on—is that weight-bearing vehicles and lorries have to be placed strategically and safely on the vessels to make it seaworthy and safe for everyone travelling on them. Has the maximum tonnage that the vessels can take remained the same or has it had to be reduced?

I am interested in the financial realities of some of this. You said in your opening statement that the spend on social welfare provisions in Scotland is £1.1 billion more than what we get in comparable Barnett consequentials from the United Kingdom Government. That is additional spend that we have invested in Scotland due to our priorities. As the gap grows between what we get from Westminster and the additional money that we spend, does it reduce the Scottish Government’s flexibility to do more?

Thank you.

First, I welcome the fact that we are in a place, in this Parliament, where there is an obligation and a statutory duty on Government to uprate certain core benefits by inflation. That is a very powerful thing.

It is, however, always reasonable to ask—and we had this debate during the passage of the social security legislation—why some benefits have been picked for statutory obligations to uprate while others are discretionary. I, of course, welcome the fact that the discretionary ones are being uprated by inflation under the draft order, but that might not always be the case. What is the rationale? What is the latest thinking of the Government in relation to that?

I am hugely supportive of the Scottish child payment, but my understanding is that, in effect, it is a top-up for families because of the insufficient universal credit levels in the UK. That is how people access the Scottish child payment.

What are the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on the New Economics Foundation’s report of October last year? It said that, even with the UK uprating of universal credit for this year, because of the end of cost of living payments, a lone parent in the UK who has one child will be £350 worse off in April this year than they were in April last year. Surely that is unacceptable. Surely that has to stop.

The current or any future UK Government must surely do what the Scottish Government is doing and uprate benefits properly, rather than give with one hand and take away with another. There is £450 million of Scottish taxpayers’ money—quite rightly, I should point out—going to subsidise the UK universal credit system, which in effect is not fit for purpose.

We do not need reviews of that system; we need fundamental principles that drive our attitude to welfare, and I am pleased to say that that is the case with the Scottish child payment. Has the cabinet secretary made representations to the UK Government about the insufficiency of universal credit? Will she do so consistently, irrespective of which Government is in power?

I understand that this is another example of the Scottish Government stepping in to provide support that would otherwise not be available elsewhere in the UK, so I support it.

Good morning, minister and Mr Wilson.

I will support the Government’s moves, although not with any great enthusiasm, based on a precautionary approach to legislation. A number of constituents have contacted me to make representations—not only XL bully dog owners but concerned members of the public, so I have seen both sides of the debate.

It is clear that dog and animal welfare groups and expert groups all withdrew from the DEFRA working group that was pursuing a ban in England, due to concerns over the poor quality and rushed nature of the legislation from the UK Government. The UK legislation is clearly far from perfect—in fact, to call it “imperfect” would be a compliment. The Scottish legislation will, therefore, have very similar issues.

It might be that weak legislation is better than no legislation, based on the precautionary principle that I mentioned. However, I have a constituent who has two XL bully-type dogs. They are a responsible owner, I am sure, and through no fault of their own they have to move home. That owner will face a situation in which they will struggle, not because they have an XL bully type dog, but because social landlords do not like taking dogs into tenancies, and nor do some private landlords. Therefore, they might face an invidious choice somewhere down the line as to whether to euthanise their two dogs in order to prioritise a home.

My understanding is that the statutory instrument does not provide an exemption for my constituent, which is concerning. However, there is a further statutory instrument coming down the line, in which exemptions will be looked at again. Is that aspect something that the Scottish Government can and will look at?

I want to push you a bit more, minister, on where flexibility and discretion could be used and whether that could be described as a loophole, because those are two different things. If we define legislation tightly and do it well, it is not a loophole—-it is providing appropriate flexibility and discretion.

For example, if somebody has a private tenancy in Scotland—I am talking about Scotland-based examples—and the landlord wishes to take possession of that home to stay in it themselves, and the tenant becomes homeless through no fault of their own, that is all clearly evidence based. That would not be a loophole; a very clear element of flexibility could be shown in that regard.

I know that we cannot legislate for individual cases, but we should at least be looking to legislate along different themes. I do not think that, if we legislated for housing situations that would arise in England, that would in any way create a loophole for people bringing dogs from England to Scotland. I do not understand that.

I want to know a little bit more about how the Government will work with representatives of owners of large dog breeds, such as the experts at Bedlay Gardens, which Mr Wilson mentioned. It was mentioned that the implementation group includes COSLA, Police Scotland, the National Dog Warden Association and others, but I am not sure that representatives of large dog breed owners were mentioned. I think that, rather than just engaging with them, having them at the table would be a worthwhile endeavour. What does the minister think about that?