 First item of business today is members business debate on motion 4643 in the name of Ben MacPherson. On UK Government restrictions for 18 to 21-year-olds accessing financial support for housing. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put and I ask those who wish to press the request to speak buttons now. I call Ben MacPherson to open the debate in around seven minutes. I would like to thank the Presiding Officer for securing debate time on this important issue of UK Government restrictions for 18 to 21-year-olds accessing financial support for housing. Presiding Officer, how we as a country support our young people is fundamental to the prosperity of our society and the strength of our economy. How we nurture the contributions of younger generations will shape the values of our future, the character of our nation, the strength of our commerce and the prospects of our collective wellbeing. That is why we must seek to support and encourage all of our young people in their adolescence and on their journey into adulthood. The UK Government's decision to abolish access to financial support for housing for 18 to 21-year-olds from 1 April this year is a backward step. It is a detrimental measure that will negatively affect the future of the young people affected and the future of our country. While at present, the policy only applies to new universal credit claims from single job seekers in the five areas of Scotland where universal credit has been fully rolled out, in the years ahead, the policy will affect all new claimants in Scotland as the UK Government rolls out universal credit across our country by April 2018. Therefore, very soon, the policy will negatively affect 18 to 21-year-olds across Scotland in both urban and rural areas. The Tories envisage that young adults affected by the policy will be able to return to the parental home or enter employment, but that will not always be possible or beneficial. As Shelter Scotland has stated, this Tory policy will remove an important safety net for young adults. While I acknowledge that the UK legislation includes certain exemptions to the policy, the overall policy intent of this cut, in support of young people, remains both nonsensical and punitive, and the young people that it will affect will undoubtedly be impaired as a result. There is no guarantee that the exemptions in sections 4b and 4c of the regulations will be administered accurately or appropriately in practice. What will the costs of assessment be? Will all young people have the necessary wherewithal to seek exemptions and advocacy services? How will vulnerability be proved? As the homelessness charity Crisis has stated, vulnerability is a dynamic, not a fixed state. It is affected by many factors that will make someone's life more or less difficult over time. Any system of exemptions is going to find it extremely difficult to keep pace with changes in circumstances. Young people may have to move in and out of work or training. Their relationships with their parents can fluctuate and be prone to sporadic crisis or reconciliations. Their emotional state and mental health may be fragile. Tracking all of this over time will not only be difficult, but it will also be very expensive to administer. Adam Tomkins I am very grateful to Mr McPherson for giving way. Is this a speech that he is giving in favour of the proposition that the Scottish Government should exercise its powers under section 28 of the Scotland Act 2018 to create a new benefit to support unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds in pursuit of housing? Ben Macpherson I will be coming on to forward actions in due course. No doubt today that some Conservative MSPs will maintain that the effect of their party's policy will be negligible, but tell that to the several hundred young people who will be affected in Scotland this year and the estimated 1,000 young people each year after that. Tell it to the estimated 11,000 to be affected each year across the UK. All for a measly supposed cost saving to the treasury of 0.4 per cent of the total annual spend on housing benefit. What is more, given the history of welfare reform, I predict the numbers affected will rise. Even if the estimates are correct and the exemptions work perfectly, the whole ethos of this policy is wrong-headed. Not only does the policy stem from a misguided and cynical world view and false assertions about the motivations and circumstances of young people in our communities, but this Tory policy has real potential to contradict the stated aims of UK Government welfare reform, namely to encourage claimants off benefits and into work. Rather than false notions about subsidising young people to leave home for a life on benefits as the Tory 2015 manifesto mistakenly asserts, housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-old job seekers can in fact provide the platform necessary for individuals to move into employment, especially if they are transitioning out of homelessness, as Shelter Scotland has powerfully argued. In other words, this UK Government policy not only discriminates against young people, but it creates barriers to work and diminishes the ability of affected individuals to move forward, and this is therefore against the UK Government's own principles of welfare reform and universal credit. The policy creates difficulties for young people to move into the private rented sector, with reports of PRS landlords already avoiding younger tenants as a result of the policy. The policy also puts social housing tenants at risk of losing their tenancies. The catch-22 is that, in some cases, the policy will stop access to a tenancy at all. In order to make a claim for universal credit housing costs, an individual must have a tenancy agreement, but in order to access a tenancy, the individual must prove evidence that they will be able to access help with housing costs if they are not in work. The policy makes no sense. While the proposed UK Government initiative of a youth obligation may aid employment support, it will not make housing affordable for those affected. Not only is this UK Government policy unnecessary and discriminatory against young people, but Scotland does not want it. The SNP manifesto in 2016 committed to oppose these cuts. The SNP forms the Scottish Government, and the UK Government should honour the democratic wishes of the Scottish people and facilitate the abolition of the policy in Scotland. The decision of the UK Government to implement this policy by changing the eligibility criteria in universal credit, rather than the calculation, has meant that the Scottish Government cannot use its power under the Scotland Act 2016 to mitigate the changes in a straightforward way. The UK Secretary of State's refusal to enable a geographic exemption for Scotland is an act of preference rather than necessity. Let me be clear that the UK Government can exempt Scotland from this policy if it wants to in law. All it needs to do is write it down in statute. I encourage the Scottish Government to keep pursuing a geographical exemption with the UK Government, and Scottish Conservatives must face up to the fact that this would be a much more expedient process than introducing a new Scottish benefit to plaster over bad Tory UK Government policy. Presiding Officer, this policy is not really about reducing expenditure or reducing the number of claimants. Instead, this cut by the Tories is about pandering to false assertions about young people and their housing choices and lifestyles. As well as sensuously harming the individuals affected, those cuts will put more and more pressure on local services. Ruth Davidson said at the weekend that she wants to talk about Scotland's young people. Unfortunately, she is not here today, but in the spirit of good faith, I would like to pass a message on to her via her Conservative colleagues present. Those cuts to financial support for 18 to 21-year-olds will distress and derail the young people affected. They will diminish the prospects for young people to fulfil their potential and flourish. They will negatively impact on the society that young people in Scotland will grow up in. The policy depressingly panders to cynical and judgmental assertions about young people's motivations and assertions that politicians should be challenging, not legitimising. In conclusion, I call on the Tories and the UK Government to abandon this wrong-headed policy of restricting access to financial support for 18 to 21-year-olds. I urge the Scottish Government to keep standing up for Scotland's young people, to keep opposing those restrictions and to keep pursuing a sustainable removal of those restrictions and the cuts and hardship that they will cause. The housing system is already stacked against young people. That Tory policy does not help. Now move to the open debate. Speeches have around for a minute's please. Adam Tomkins will be followed by Mary Todd. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Before I start, let it just be recorded in the official report that there is not a single Labour MSP in the chamber to debate this matter, nor is there any Liberal Democrat MSP in this chamber. There are green MSPs, Conservative MSPs and SNP MSPs only. Coming to the substance of the issue that Ben Macpherson has brought to the chamber this afternoon, first of all, I think that it's important to understand the scope of this regulation. One of the things that Ben Macpherson failed to say in his impassioned speech a few minutes ago was that this is a policy that applies not to all 18 to 21-year-olds, but only to unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds. It only applies to unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds who are making new claims to universal credit. It only applies to single UC claimants. It doesn't apply to anybody who's married. So I think that it's important also to understand, before we go any further, just to understand just how narrow the scope of this regulation is. It also, of course, applies only, and Ben Macpherson did say this. It applies only where universal credit has been, where full service has been rolled out, which at the moment is only five areas in Scotland, although that will grow in time. It is also a policy in respect of which there is a large number of exemptions that have been, in the words of the Scottish Government, co-produced with a range of stakeholders who have been working with DWP to develop this policy. This policy will not apply to anybody responsible for a child, any parent, carer or guardian. It won't apply to anybody in temporary accommodation. It won't apply to anyone who was a care leaver before the age of 18. It won't apply to any victim of domestic violence and it won't apply to anyone unable to return home because of a risk to physical or mental health. These exemptions ensure that the most vulnerable will continue to have the housing support that they need, so the policy will only affect those who have no barriers to work and who are able to return safely to their parental home. That's its justification. The policy removes what was formerly a perverse incentive for young adults to leave the family home and pass the cost of doing so on to the taxpayer. The policy is about stopping young people slipping straight into a life on benefits, which is quite the opposite of the rationale that Ben Macpherson sought to portray underlying the policy. Those who are affected by the policy, Deputy Presiding Officer, will be helped moreover by a new youth obligation within the framework of universal credit, a form of intensive employment support backed by apprenticeships, traineeships and work placements—exactly the sort of employment support that I would have thought everybody in this chamber from any party would want to support. Ben Macpherson's motion talks about the UK Government's short timescale behind the introduction of this policy. That's an aspect of his motion that I just don't understand. David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, first raised this as a policy in 2012. It was in the Conservative Party manifesto, the successful Conservative Party manifesto in 2015, as Mr Macpherson said in his remarks. It was formally introduced in the summer budget of that year, two years ago. I know that Mr Macpherson supports a Government here that is moving as slowly as it is possible to move in terms of the progress of the devolution of welfare. Announcing a policy in 2012, making it formal in 2015 and introducing it with effect from April 2017, is not moving at a short timescale. I would be happy to give way if I have time. I can give you a little bit of time. Ben Macpherson. Very briefly, I am grateful to Mr Thomas for giving me away, would you acknowledge that the regulations were only laid a month before the implementation of the policy? Adam Tomkins. I would acknowledge that the regulations were signalled months and months in advance in the summer budget of 2015. A sensible Government would regard a period between the announcement of a policy in 2012, making that formal in 2015 and implementing it in 2017 as a sensible pace of progress. Finally, the power to create new benefits, and this will be my final point, Presiding Officer. The reason why the UK Government could not act under section 11.4, I think it is, which is the provision of the legislation that the Scottish Government wanted the UK Government to act under, is because the Secretary of State has legal advice that it is impossible for him to, legally inept, legally impossible for him to act under that power. So the only power under which he could act to introduce these regulations is a power that changes the eligibility. Now, I fully accept that that means that the top-up power cannot be used in this instance, but that is why, around the Smith commission table, we did not just agree a top-up power. We also agreed a power, which is in section 28 of the Scotland Act, to create new benefits in devolved areas. This is a devolved area. We are talking about housing. If the Scottish Government wanted to introduce a new benefit under section 28, then it has all of the powers that it needs to, and it seems to me that if the Scottish Government wanted to do that, it would need no further than Ben Macpherson's speech for the justification for it doing so. I may have to be a bit tighter on the following speeches. Marie Todd, to be followed by Andy Wightman. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to Ben Macpherson for bringing forward this important member's debate. Just yesterday, in this Parliament, we debated the impact of welfare reforms on disabled people, and a couple of weeks ago, we debated the callous rape clause policy. We have already heard some members in this chamber defend the frankly indefensible. Here we are again, discussing another ill-conceived and harmful Tory policy that we know will have a detrimental impact on the most vulnerable people in our society. Homeless charities, including Shelter, Crisis and Centre Point, have been very clear in voicing their concerns. Cutting housing benefits to 18 to 21-year-olds risk increasing the number of rough sleepers. Why would the Conservative Government in the UK introduce cuts that are known to have this effect when they also know that homelessness is on the rise for the sixth year running in England? Does not this undermine the Government's commitment to reducing homelessness? A spokesperson for the Department of Work and Pensions, and Mr Tomkins has repeated here, claimed that the move is intended to make sure that 18 to 21-year-olds do not slip straight into a life on benefits. The Tories talk about choosing a life on benefits, choosing to claim housing allowances, but this fundamentally misses the point that, for many people, there is no choice. The idea that removing entitlement to housing benefit will drive all young people to earn or learn to use David Cameron's own words is to misunderstand many of the people who rely on this part of the social security system. The policy fails to take into account the reality of many young people's lives. The option of being able to live with your patient parents is not a luxury that is open to everyone. I represent a part of the country where youngsters rarely live with their parents beyond school age. Many of us in the Highlands and Islands leave home for work or study at a very young age. I was only 17 when I left home myself, but my family was still able to support me. Those cuts will affect those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in desperately difficult situations. For those who leave home abruptly, be it because of an abusive relationship, their sexual or gender identity, social housing is their sanctuary, their sanity. It provides them with much-needed stability. Adam Tomkins As I said in my remarks a few moments ago, will the member not accept that there is an exemption for anybody who is at risk of mental or physical harm in the parental home? That policy will not apply to exactly the category of people that she is now talking about. Marie Todd Thank you, and I would ask the member, just like with the rape clause, can I ask you exactly how somebody would prove that? No? Okay. The policy does not even make sound economic sense. Recent research by Harriet Watt University found that once the cost of vital exemptions and costs to other public services have been taken into account, the policy will save a maximum of £3.3 million. It will take only 140 extra young people to become homeless before the policy costs more than it saves. If it is the welfare bill that they want to cut, the UK Government should be addressing the root cause of the problem and make building homes that people can afford more of a priority. As I am sure that you are aware, universal credit has been rolled out in Highland already, causing huge hardship. Among the other concerns that I hear from constituents who work in housing is that 18 to 21-year-olds, because they will seek ways to secure accommodation under the exemptions, the policy will increase pressure on charitable housing associations, increase pressure on local authorities, increase pressure on GPs, increase pressure on care providers, all of whom are already working under extreme due rest. I hear that it has always been difficult to get private landlords to take people out on, but the system will without doubt put paid to that. That is what constituents who work in housing are telling me. Private landlords simply will not take the risk. The Scottish Government has made it absolutely clear that it opposes those cuts. The Scottish welfare fund will mitigate that for now, but the bottom line is that it should not have to. I call Andy Wightman to be followed by Mary Evans. Thank you to Ben Fersen for bringing this debate. It is important at the outset to stress that the withdrawal of support for young people is part of a wider failure in housing policy, and that wider failure is to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing for all. That has led, for example, to the rapid growth in the private rented sector, not a sector of choice for young people but a sector of necessity. According to the UK Government's own figures, the housing benefit bill is set to reach £25 billion this year. To my mind, that is a price of failure in the housing market, and that is against a historic shift in public support provided to housing supply, a shift from housing supply to housing demand, a shift from investment in housing to spending to support demand, and a regressive move that has led to rising house prices, rising rents and growing inequality. As Marie Todd pointed out in Ben Fersen's motion, that policy could very easily end up costing Government more money than it is designed to save. Young people can be forgiven to think that housing policy has not only neglected them but is working actively against their interests, as Marie Black noted in her maiden speech in the House of Commons. In this budget, the chancellor also abolished any housing benefit for anyone below the age of 21. We are in the ridiculous situation where, because I am an MP, not only am I the youngest but I am also the only 20-year-old in the whole of the UK that the chancellor has prepared to help with housing. That is a rather sad past to come to. Housing, in short, in the private rented sector and in the owner-occupied sector is too expensive. House prices have soared over the past three decades, exacerbating growing inequality between a property owning class and a landless class. Many of the powers to tackle this, to reduce rents, to reduce house prices, lie with the Scottish Parliament. We have the power to design an effective system of housing taxation, but we have failed to do it. We have the power to capture land values for the public good but have not done so. We have the power to repeal planning legislation that rewards landowners for the grant of planning permission, but we have failed to do so. Whilst I welcome the Government's commitment to build 35,000 affordable homes, I disagree that those will be affordable by any definition that is recognised by young people. This is the background against which the withdrawal of benefits has taken place. The Scottish Government has now announced that it will provide affected 18 to 21-year-olds with funding from the Scottish welfare fund on an interim basis. That is welcome, but I would like to ask the minister if any additional resource will be made available to the fund to meet the extra demand, as opposed to being met from an existing already very overstretched budget, because the cost of mitigation is likely to be around £6.5 million over the next three years. Demand for the Scottish welfare fund rises considerably when universal credit is fully rolled out, as we have seen in Musselborough, with the Social Security Committee hearing evidence that pressure on East Lothian councils fund there is unsustainable. As universal credit full service rolls out and the housing cost restrictions come into play from more and more 18 to 21-year-olds, that will be at the same time as a range of other increasing demands for the fund. I hope that ministers have thought about how that will be handled. Although I have a great deal of sympathy for the position that the Scottish Government has been forced into it by the unwillingness of the UK Government to create a better mechanism for mitigating the cut, I would also like to stress that doing so through the Scottish welfare fund should only be temporary. It is meeting a statutory entitlement, albeit a de facto one at present, through what is effectively a discretionary fund, and that is not a good precedent to set. Fundamentally, in this Parliament, we need to focus on eliminating the necessity for providing housing support by solving the underlying structural problems in the housing market. Most of those are already devolved to this Parliament, and we should use them. I remind the chamber that I am the parliamentary liaison officer to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities. I normally start a debate by saying that it is a pleasure to take part in it, but I do not really take pleasure in taking part in the debate today, just like I did not take any pleasure in taking part in the debate last week on food banks or in discussing the impact that cuts to social security have had on those with a disability yesterday, but here we are again. I do not necessarily take pleasure in speaking in today's debate. I am glad at least to have the opportunity to do it and to highlight yet another Tory policy that will have a devastating impact on a number of young people in this country. To that end, I would very much like to thank Ben MacPherson for his motion and for bringing this debate forward. I just feel that no matter which way you look at this policy, it is poorly thought out and does not make sense. As we already heard, it has the potential to cost more money than it saves. While there are exemptions to the policy, they do not go far enough and, as Shelter highlighted in its briefing, the impacts could be catastrophic. The draft-led regulations, as we already heard, were only laid one month before the intended implementation date. It is something that organisations and local authorities did not give them enough time to prepare for the impact in spite of what Adam Tomkins would like to admit today. In Scotland, the Government has committed to mitigating against the policy for an interim period of time through the Scottish welfare fund. The UK Government has refused to delay its implementation, while discussions between the two Governments took place and, as Ben MacPherson highlighted, to give a geographical exemption to Scotland. The Scottish Government estimates that 768 people will be affected by the policy and they will not meet the exemptions and would have to apply to the Scottish welfare fund. In Aberdeenshire and Angus, where universal credit is expected to be rolled out from November this year to March 2018, it is estimated that, in Angus, 23 people will be affected in Aberdeenshire and 20 people. That is 43 people to many and 43 people that we cannot let fall through the net. The policy will also cost more lives than it saves if it results in an increase in homelessness. As we already heard from Marie Todd, which I think is a vitally important point to remember, only 140 young people need to become homeless for the costs of this to outweigh any potential savings identified. The latest cuts to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds are simply part of a wider attack that the Tories have launched on young people across the UK. Though, thankfully, in Scotland, under this Government, there has been some protection against the worst of this, because let's look at the overall picture here and exactly what the Tories have done for young people since they came to power. They have denied young people aged 16 and 17 the right to vote as exists in Scotland, so while young people have had the chance to have their say in the council election two weeks ago, they are now in the bizarre position of five weeks later not being able to vote in a general election, the results of which will no doubt punish their generation for yet another generation to come. You could be a young person in the UK, be doing the same job as someone older than you, but not be entitled to the same pay because of your age. You are not entitled to the living wage. You have to pay tuition fees to attend university. As of autumn this year, you can be charged up to £9,250 to attend university in England, with a degree debt in England, the highest in the English-speaking world. Those who do graduate do so with an average debt of around £44,000. Those from the poorest backgrounds can expect to graduate with an excess of £50,000 worth of debt, because the Tories, while increasing tuition fees, also saw fit to scrap the maintenance allowance which 620,000 young people were dependent on. The might of debt taken on by students in England has more than doubled in the last 10 years, and this is a Tory policy that is burdening an entire generation and forcing them to begin their lives saddled with debt. The housing benefit policy is the latest in a long line of Tory policies that are ill-conceived and which will ultimately cause harm. This is nothing more than yet another assault on young people which we in Scotland are yet again forced to mitigate against. If you are a young person in the UK, this is a pretty bleak picture, and I would urge all young people to remember all of those points raised when they walk into that polling booth on June 8. The last of the open speakers is Graham Simpson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's strange, isn't it, that we have debates welfare in this Parliament, as though changes to the welfare system are some kind of bolts from the blue. Last minute, nasty Tory broadsides designed to catch out the needy. That's the narrative. I thought you'd like that one. That's the narrative, but it's entirely wrong. We need to have more considered discussions on these issues in this Parliament. So before I turn to the issue at hand raised by Ben MacPherson, who omits to say in his motion that this change only applies to job seekers, let's establish some facts. The removal of entitlement to the housing element of universal credit from young people aged 18 to 21, with some exceptions, from last month, was first trailed by David Cameron in 2012, and then announced by the then Chancellor George Osborne in his summer 2015 budget. We've known it was definitely going to happen for nearly two years. The stated rationale is to ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave home. David Cameron said in 2014, I want us to end the idea that aged 18, you leave school, go and leave home, claim unemployment benefit and claim housing benefit. We should not be offering that choice to young people. We should be saying to people you should be earning or learning. Laudable aims. Nobody benefits long term from a life on benefits. There will, of course, be exceptions as there should be. The regulations specify the categories of young people who will be exempt. They include those who may not be able to return home to live with their parents, certain claimants who've been in work for six months prior to making a claim, and young people who are parents. Those in temporary accommodation are also exempt. Nobody who's currently in receipt of any payment is going to lose out. This only relates to new entrants into the system. The aim of it is to ensure that young people don't slip straight from school and on to a life of benefits. If anyone thinks that's a positive destination, stick your hand up now. Nobody. Young adults affected by the policy will be expected to return to the parental home or enter employment. The UK Government envisages that the new youth obligation will help young people into work, as Adam Tomkins mentioned. About 1,000 people will be affected UK-wide in the first year and only a few hundred in Scotland. I called earlier for a considered discussion. That means all of us retreating from knee-jerk partisan positions that sort espoused by the Ben Macpherson's of this world. I want to see homelessness—Oh, Ben smiled, that's good. I want to see homelessness reduced, eradicated even. As the Scottish Conservatives' housing spokesman, it's an issue—No, I'm not. As the Scottish Conservatives' housing spokesman, it's an issue I feel passionately about. We, as a party, signed up to Shelter's call for a national homelessness strategy earlier this year. The SNP is the only major party not to have done so, so don't lecture us on homelessness. I'm involved in the local government and communities committees inquiry into homelessness, the causes of which are complex. There are no easy solutions. I was at a conference in Glasgow this week, organised by Crisis, which was formed 50 years ago by Conservative Ian McLeod. It behoves us all to retreat from the kind of hysterical language used in this motion and deal with this subject in a serious and considered way so that organisations such as Crisis don't exist in another 50 years. I now call Jane Freeman to respond to this debate. If you don't mind me saying, Minister, we do have a little bit of extra time that could be used, so I could give extra time for interventions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start by thanking Ben Macpherson for bringing this motion to debate and for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Government. I also start with what will probably be the only point of agreement with Mr Tomkins in this debate, but I too record my disappointment that neither Labour nor Liberal Democrat colleagues have chosen to join us for what is an important discussion. That was it, Mr Tomkins. It's not going to get any better than that. I'm also happy to put on record that the Scottish Government shares many of the concerns that have been raised by members about the removal of support for housing costs for 18 to 21-year-olds. We made it clear in our manifesto, which then elected us to be the Government of Scotland, that we wish to retain housing benefit for that age group and those affected by the UK Government's policy. I'll come to that in a moment. I'm more than happy to assure Mr Macpherson that we will continue to pursue that manifesto commitment on which we were elected and, in particular, to pursue with the UK Government the Smith agreement and its requirement to honour that agreement, as we do. I want to start a bit more substantively by refuting absolutely that notion that we've heard from our colleagues here in the Conservative benches that a life on benefits is somehow a choice and a choice that young people consciously, deliberately, willingly make at the age of 18. All of the evidence points us in the other direction, and if any members in the Tory benches actually took the time and the trouble to talk to the young people affected, they would know that those young people, like young people, who are length and breadth of Scotland, have ability and talent, many challenges to face and what they want is to be able to live an independent life. In my world, that is something that a Government should assist them to do and not actively try to prevent them from doing it. What a contradictory policy we have here, a policy where the DWP would allow an individual support, won't allow them support to sustain their current tendency, but if they then become homeless and under our legislation are protected with temporary accommodation, they will get that support back. There is no sense in this and there is no sense in it in terms of either logic or in a moment, or the cost. I cannot understand what the point is. Mr Tomkins said, let us remember the narrow scope of this policy. Let us remember the long list of exemptions. I remember both. I am forced to the point of wondering what is the point of this policy. Is it still, just a second, based on the notion that the benefit system is not there for all of us in times of need? It is not something that we all collectively contribute to, which is our view. It is there for all of us, something that is part of a contract, a social contract, between Government and people, like the national health service, but rather it is something that people who are scroungers, who are work shy, who want to live off the state, and therefore we have to be suspicious of them, we have to curtail it, we have to make sure that they get as little as possible. Is that the ideology? I think so. Mr Tomkins, is it indeed Adam Tomkins? Does the minister think that the taxpayer should pay the rent of an unemployed 18 to 21-year-old? If she does, when will she use her powers under section 28 of the Scotland act to introduce such a benefit into Scots law? I do not accept for one second this binary notion that there are a bunch of taxpayers over there working hard, contributing and gaining little, but looking after shoring up in some charitable way, looking after this other lot of people over there who are scroungers and work shy. I absolutely do not buy into that notion at all. If Mr Tomkins had listened for one moment to the debate that we had yesterday on disability, he would understand that it is that very fundamental ideological difference between us, which produces the notion that people are stigmatised, that they are vulnerable, that they somehow are afraid to go and ask for what they are entitled to. I go back to my point—I am getting to your point—which is that social security is an investment that we collectively make in ourselves and in each other. Neither of us, Mr Tomkins, is neither you nor I know the day when we might need that financial support. Therefore, I do not accept what he has said, and I am getting to the point about when we will deal with this matter in Scotland. However, let me say this. There is no reason—do not come here and quote legal advice. There is no reason, no reason at all, why the UK Government could not have introduced the changes it seeks in a manner that would have allowed us to retain that benefit for those 18 to 21-year-olds, to Governments certainly coming at this matter from opposing sides, both with manifesto commitments. We were prepared to honour and respect their democratic right. Unfortunately, they have not been able to do that with us. We are forced into using an interim, non-person-centred, unnecessarily bureaucratic solution called the Scottish Welfare Fund. It is one that I can give Mr Whiteman an assurance that there will be additional funds there to support that. We are determined that, while we argue with the UK Government about their approach and the intransigence with which they have dealt with us, we will not see any young person in Scotland suffer while that argument takes hold. I can also assure members that, unlike the UK Government, we do not walk away when we do not get our own way. We stay and come up with alternatives, so we suggested other person-centred solutions only to be met by a Westminster version of what you have just done—contempt, ignorance and a failure to recognise this Parliament and this Government as having a democratic mandate to do the job that we are here to do. We will keep going in that argument and we have put in place that mitigation, but let me be clear that the current UK Government's position is not acceptable in terms of 18 to 21-year-olds. I am grateful to COSLA and to officials for the work that they have done to ensure that we have that interim solution. Draft guidance has been written and will be consulted on in the coming weeks, and, after the election in June, we will continue to engage with whichever UK Government is there in order to pursue that and the other areas, specifically around the benefit cap, where they continue to set their face against the democratic powers of this Parliament and this Government to pursue our agenda. We will use the powers that we have at our disposal and ensure that, as we use that Scottish welfare fund, we learn the lessons that we need to learn and consider how, if we cannot, through universal credit, enact our manifesto commitment, what alternatives there will be to that. That might include using our powers for new benefit, but I am certain that whatever we come up with as a long-term solution will be less than adequate to be able, quite simply, to use the flexibilities in universal credit and have the UK Government accept the better way—the more person-centred way—of allowing the Scottish Government to meet our manifesto commitment and retain that policy for 18 to 21-year-olds, rather than continue to penalise and stigmatise young people in our country for whom we should be giving the very best possible start.