Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group work and potential trial in Scotland: intersectional analysis

Reviewing the extent of current intersectional analysis

Skills and prioritisation on intersectionality

Interviews with Expert Group members indicated that most members of the Expert Group did not have specific expertise on the application of intersectional and anti-oppression analysis. As a consequence, the burden of representation and responsibility to apply a foundational principle fell on the members of the Expert Group with a specific interest and knowledge or expertise in this area (from understanding this was no more than five out of fifteen members of the group), only two of which were involved in the editorial and decision-making sub-group.

It may have been helpful to have had specific development time at the onset of this work (at phase one) which provided learning for the Expert Group and developed specific processes on how intersectionality can be fully embedded. It is understood that during phase one a number of meetings were organised by members of the Expert Group itself, which aimed to bring in specific equalities expertise and focus. This was led by Expert Group members on the equalities workstream. Nine sessions were planned which would have focused on: racism, gender equality (including domestic abuse), social /unpaid care, disability, LGBTQI+, intersectionality, age, care leavers, and marriage/civil partnership. It is understood that only the sessions on racism and care leavers were delivered. The session on gender equality was attempted twice but was not attended by any other Expert Group members.

Overall, the three session which were organised, were poorly attended, and in interviews it was made clear that this was a combination of a lack of prioritisation of these issues, but also members of the Expert Group being over-stretched and time poor.

Whilst an Expert Group of this kind cannot be fully representative of the intersecting inequalities that need to be discussed, it can and should make time for these discussions as part of thematic meetings and strategic planning. It appears that the intersectional lens applied across this work was led by the interest and efforts of a small number of equality organisation representatives but it was not as ingrained into the methodology of the group’s work as it should have been; this is a frequent problem across Scottish Government working groups and has been critiqued by a number of external organisations and experts. These members used their organisation’s data, publications and service-user lived experiences to inform the group’s discussions. This is hugely welcome and can be seen within the context setting of the interim report; however, rather than this input being based on the ability of a minority of group members engaging in this way, it would have been beneficial for a more formalised approach to be threaded throughout both phases of work (an example of how this can be achieved through a framework for recommendations is explained further below).

Finally, multiple interviewees expressed their concern that this intersectionality review had been commissioned too late in the process to have any meaningful impact on the design and recommendations of a Minimum Income Guarantee. Whilst it was explained that this review is providing a reflection of how the group has functioned and may influence the final report, there is a legitimacy in questioning why a more proactive commissioned project on intersectional analysis was not invested at the commencement of the second phase of this work. It is understood from interview participants that earlier commissions focused on intersectional analysis, particularly to overcome data gaps, were requested but were not resourced. External experts with an understanding of intersectionality were recommended by members of the Expert Group and approached to provide insight into technical aspects of the development of a Minimum Income Guarantee, though it is understood that this was limited.

Workstreams and protected characteristics focus

During phase one of the Expert Group, eight workstreams were established, one of which was on equalities, as indicated above. Each workstream had a written remit developed and agreed by the Expert Group; the equalities workstream remit was to create a “living document” with questions related to equalities and protected characteristics for other workstreams to consider as a way to mainstream equalities thinking. This group’s remit did not include any reference to intersectionality or the application of an intersectional analysis. It is likely that experts in this workstream engaged in discussions about intersectional analysis and its application; however, again, a lack of formal recognition within documentation which sets the agenda for workstreams gives permission for intersectionality to be overlooked.

The discussions, papers, and interviews indicate that where prioritisation and time were given to discussions related to equality groups via the workstream, these were siloed by protected characteristic, rather than taking the opportunity for a deeper intersectional analysis. Intersectional discussions appeared to be most effective and engaged within discussion related to single-parents and gender and disability and gender. Critically, given the origins of intersectionality and its roots in feminist and anti-racist theory, race and ethnicity did not feature in as distinct a manner as expected.

During phase two, it was recognised that further equalities experts were needed on the Expert Group and those with anti-racism and gender budgeting were included, providing more competent equalities input and some further intersectional analysis. Through these equalities additions, those already on the Expert Group and wider external organisations where relevant, papers were developed and coordinated by the secretariat on specific technical issues (such as individual vs household assessment) to provide a more robust equalities assessment.

Specific papers and data gathering on population groups were resourced and developed by the Expert Group. These were on:

• Care experience and care leavers
• Students
• Rurality
• Disabled People
• Unpaid carers
• Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and No Recourse to Public Funds
• Pensioners
• 16 and 17-year-olds

Having this wide-ranging overview and workstreams dedicated to each of these areas is important and was a helpful addition to support the foundations on which the final report was developed.

Across these papers there is some intersectional analysis. For example, the paper on Refugees, Asylum Seekers and those with “no recourse to public funds” (NRPF) conditions on their visas, does acknowledge that women under NRPF visa stipulations are more economically dependent on their spouses, and if they experience domestic abuse or sexual violence they are often unable to access services and support as a consequence of the visa restrictions. There is further analysis related to migration status and gender which could have been included here such as the disproportionate impact of labour market conditions on refugee women’s ability to access stable and fairly paid work, further locking them into poverty (GLIMER, 2020). This same publication also includes recommendations related to improved and specific employability services for refugee women, which should be included in the services recommendations in the current draft report.

Another example from the paper on unpaid carers rightly emphasises that the majority of unpaid carers are women and that one in five are also disabled. There is also a reference to intersectionality and BME carers. This acknowledgment is welcome and necessary in building a Minimum Income Guarantee that is effective, particularly in identifying a potential trial population group. However, intersectional analysis requires going beyond acknowledgment of the evidence of these overlapping inequalities and utilising this evidence to design and demand change. The recommendations endorsed in the paper would undoubtedly make a positive difference to unpaid carers who experience intersecting inequalities (e.g., BME women); however, intersectional analysis applied to these recommendations would include specificity on how these recommendations are resourced and implemented to specifically mitigate these overlapping inequalities. For example, the paper includes a recommendation for consideration by the Expert Group. It states: “access to essential services and resources, as well as better tailored support to support those unpaid carers who wish to stay in or enter the workforce.” Whilst this is an important recommendation to the Scottish Government, applying an intersectional analysis requires specificity of what this “better tailoring” means in order to mitigate the compounding inequalities faced by certain unpaid carers, e.g. BME women unpaid carers and their specific barriers in accessing the labour market as a consequence of the compounding impacts of racism, sexism, and the undervaluing of care. Many interviewees stated that sufficient time was not given to have the in-depth discussions needed to consider these overlaps in inequalities and to build the ambition of the Minimum Income Guarantee (in particular recommendations related to services).

NB: Throughout this report the terms BME (Black, Minority Ethnic), Minority Ethnic and non-white are used. The terms included are taken from the research and data being referred to at that point. One term has not been given preference as the population group being referred to in each set of data may be different according to the researchers’ definitions.

Overall, the population group focus across workstream was a promising starting point; however, the opportunity was missed to include limited but available intersectional data and crucially, the application of intersectionality into the development of recommendations and policy positions.

Interim report and follow through of phase one discussions

The interim report included a number of questions which were positioned as the starting point for phase two. There were twenty questions, one of which was specific to equalities:

A key aim of a Minimum Income Guarantee is to reduce inequalities, how do we ensure this is integrated into its design, that it is accessible to all and what steps need to be taken to encourage uptake and raise awareness among marginalised communities? What are the potential unintended consequences of Minimum Income Guarantee in relation to equalities?

Questions specifically on equality issues (and their mainstreaming) are numerous, and whilst it is positive that this was included in the interim report, it is surprising that it is reduced to one question. Given the extensive work by members of the Expert Group on specific marginalised communities, it would have been expected for this to be more prominent, albeit still focused on siloed marginalisation. Ideally, further questions could have been included which asked:

1. What are the most critical intersecting/compounding inequalities that need to be considered in the development of a Minimum Income Guarantee?

2. What are the intersections that the Expert Group is prioritising and what is the evidence for this?

3. What are the potential unintended consequences for those who experience specific intersecting inequalities and what would need to be designed into the policy to mitigate these?

4. What intersectional data gaps will this work need to respond to in order to have a competent understanding of how the delivery of a Minimum Income Guarantee will be influenced by existing and compounding systemic inequalities?

These questions remain unanswered and should be included in the final report to indicate to the Scottish Government what needs to be addressed to progress an effective Minimum Income Guarantee for those population groups who need it most.

It is difficult to establish how the equalities question in the interim report was answered and what, if any, specific work took place in the second phase to answer this, in particular the point about unintended consequences for marginalised communities. This part of the question requires a systemic inequalities lens which, as discussed, was not clearly identified as the foundation on which this work was being delivered. The draft report currently includes a short section on equalities. This should be added to in order to include a fuller answer to the question posed in the interim report and specifically add into these intersectional considerations. For example, on encouraging update, the final report could include examples of how an intersectional implementation of this would be delivered which responds to the reality of women of colour or disabled women being further away from services and public body communications.