Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group: December 2024

Attendees and apologies

Attendees

• Russell Gunson, Chair, Head of Programmes and Practice, The Robertson Trust
• Carmen Martinez, Coordinator, Scottish Women’s Budget Group
• Catherine Murphy, Executive Director, Engender
• Chris Birt, Associate Director, Joseph Rowntree Foundation
• Dave Hawkey, Senior Research Fellow, IPPR Scotland
• Fiona Collie, Head of Public Affairs and Communications, Carers Scotland
• Gerry McCartney, Professor of Wellbeing Economy, University of Glasgow
• Kimberly Wong, Policy and Research Officer, Coalition for Racial and Equality Rights
• Peter Kelly, Director, Poverty Alliance
• Ruth Steele, Head of Social Security Futures, Scottish Government
• Sholen Macpherson, Policy and Research Officer, Coalition for Racial and Equality Rights
• Stephen Boyd, Director, Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland
• Sharon Wright, Glasgow University
• Tressa Burke, Chief Executive, Glasgow Disability Alliance

Guest Speakers

• Heather Coady, Research Consultant, STAF
• Jeanette Miller, Policy Officer, STAF
• Pamela Graham, Head of Operations, STAF

Secretariat (Scottish Government)

• Caitlin Forsyth, Minimum Income Guarantee Policy Manager
• Rebecca Darge, Head of Minimum Income Guarantee Secretariat
• Seona Carnegie, Minimum Income Guarantee Policy Manager

Apologies 

• Anna Ritchie Allan, Executive Director, Close the Gap
• Andy White, Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership
• Ben Harrison, Work Foundation
• John Dickie, Director, Child Poverty Action Group
• Emma Jackson, Head of Social Justice, Citizen’s Advice Scotland 
• Satwat Reham, Chief Executive, One Parent Families Scotland 
• Mubin Haq, Chief Executive, Abrdn Financial Fairness Trust  

Items and actions

Welcome

The Chair welcomed all members to the meeting and introduced guest speakers. Brief update provided on recent Scottish Government budget, key areas of interest include mitigation of the two-child limit, universal winter heating payment, increasing the earnings threshold for Carers Support Payment and social security payments to be increased by inflation. 

Agenda item 1: minimum income guarantee pilots

Care leaver pilot

STAF shared an update on their project to design a MIG for care leavers on modern apprenticeships. We know care leavers experience a greater disadvantage. STAF previously explored what a basic income might look like for care leavers alongside Aberlour which this project builds on. The work so far has included desk research, engagement and consultation, designing a blueprint for a MIG pilot and stress-testing of findings. 

Question raised on intersectional data and whether there are concerns around participation of women and minoritised groups within the chosen pilot cohort, noting there is a gender segregation in modern apprenticeships (roughly only making up around 30%). It was clarified that depending on the modern apprentice area, there are more women in certain areas like care while trades are male dominated. 

Engagement sessions helped build the intersectional understanding of how a MIG pilot could benefit different groups of care leavers. There has been work with asylum seekers to ensure they would also benefit. Modern apprenticeship data for disabled young people has increased in recent years. It was asked if there would be scope to look at what disabilities people have who are taking on modern apprenticeships, particularly if they tend to be neurodiversity or physical disabilities. It was noted that there is still a lot of scoping work on the cohort that’s been chosen. 

Social Security Scotland has been considered as a delivery body. Expanding Local Authority support was also looked at. The necessary interactions with the benefit system that this would lead to introduces significant complexity and risk. There is also a degree of stigma. The best option so far appears to be topping up wages, reducing both risk and stigma. 

Unpaid carers pilot

Carers Scotland and IPPR presented on their project to develop opportunities and methods for delivering a pilot for unpaid carers. The development of their proposal has included the formation of a steering group, focus groups for carers and focus groups for stakeholders. Final recommendations have been agreed with the final report due in January 2025. The aim of the pilot will be to improve incomes and the wellbeing of carers. The vehicle for this would be Adult Carer Support Plan. The costs would depend on what proportion of Minimum Income Standard is aimed at through the payment, the cost would be the total amount to close the gap between this and current incomes. The focus of the project will be to make an effective pilot to build a bank of evidence, this would hopefully lead to a more automated system through the benefit system. 

Question raised on what the purpose of the pilots are. There are some risks around piloting such as: developing too bespoke a service for general applicability; forcing a choice on which group should benefit; and creating instability for already vulnerable groups through the temporary nature of piloting support. The work undertaken on piloting has considered some of this, the Carers Scotland pilot will be looking at tapering off support towards the end of the proposed project, so there is not a sudden dramatic drop in income. This would be accompanied by support, which it is proposed expectation would continue through existing mechanisms such as the Adult Carer Support Plan. 

Action: Secretariat to circulate presentations from STAF and Carers Scotland.  

Agenda item 2: recommendation on pilots

Following presentations on MIG pilot options, the potential for a recommendation on this was introduced. The overview focused on why we might pilot a MIG, what the design aims are and what this could look like. The Chair noted that he is meeting with Strategy Group members where the recommendations have been discussed so will feedback on this soon. Members were asked to provide feedback on piloting: 

• thought that the more detail that is specified in the Expert Group’s recommendations may limit overall support for a pilot. Keeping recommendations as open as possible was viewed as helpful for decision makers. This should be balanced against the necessary detail to support implementation
• general concerns about whether a pilot is needed versus moving ahead with implementation. Not sure the argument to pilot a MIG is strong enough, we know more income leads to better outcomes. The recommendations and roadmap so far are looking towards policy change and not piloting. It could make more sense to say that we would like to evaluate the impact of implementation versus piloting a MIG itself
• noted that the commitment to explore data sharing and collaborative working between UK Government, the DWP and SG to mitigate the two-child limit could open up opportunities to progress a MIG
• need to be really clear about what the purpose of a pilot is and what we would look to gain
• flagged that there are some ethical and wider risks with piloting, including choosing a group and tailoring a pilot to work for a small group that couldn’t be rolled out on a wider basis. There is also a risk that a small scale pilot couldn’t demonstrate some of the larger economic benefits of a MIG
• question raised about whether this would be to test the delivery mechanisms or impact on different groups, if it’s the latter there is a lot of literature already out there so a pilot might not add much. If it is the former this should not be tested on a vulnerable group

Agenda item 3: MIG commission recommendation

Overview provided of feedback and amendments to the recommendation on establishing a MIG commission. Feedback from Poverty Alliance session on a human rights approach to a MIG also shared. The Chair opened the meeting for discussion:

• concerns around the democracy of the proposed commission were raised. Additionally, the scope and remit of the commission is large and may result in too much power sitting with one group
• the current commission landscape is under review so any proposal would need to keep this in mind. Members suggested that the evaluating and uprating the MIG could become the responsibility of an existing committee e.g. Poverty and Inequality Commission
• it was agreed that the right level of expertise is needed for any commission which must include technical and lived experience. This should also be at arm’s length of the Government, similar to the Low Pay Commission
• flagged that if there isn’t a commission, there still needs to be a mechanism to evaluate and set levels of a MIG. Leaving it to politicians only doesn’t seem to be a favourable option. Suggested that the Poverty and Inequality Commission could take on the responsibility
• there was general consensus that a mechanism to oversee the roll out and uprating of a MIG is needed, whether that’s a commission or something different. 

Agenda item 4: comms and launch materials

The Secretariat outlined the timeline for drafting until publication and noted that thinking has started on launch plans for the MIG report. Recent work to frame a MIG, which will be shared shortly, will help inform how to communicate the policy. 

Action: Members to consider the report launch and what materials would be helpful to aid communication around this. 

Action: Secretariat to circulate MIG framing report and overview slides alongside minutes.  

Any other business

None.