Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group: February 2025

 

 

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
• Emma Jackson, Head of Social Justice, Citizen’s Advice Scotland 
• Fiona Collie, Head of Public Affairs and Communications, Carers Scotland
• Gerry McCartney, Professor of Wellbeing Economy, University of Glasgow
• John Dickie, Director, Child Poverty Action Group
• Kimberly Wong, Policy and Research Officer, Coalition for Racial and Equality Rights
• Mubin Haq, Chief Executive, Abrdn Financial Fairness Trust  
• Peter Kelly, Director, Poverty Alliance
• Ruth Steele, Head of Social Security Futures, Scottish Government
• Satwat Reham, Chief Executive, One Parent Families Scotland 
• Sharon Wright, Glasgow University
• Sholen Macpherson, Policy and Research Officer, Coalition for Racial and Equality Rights
• Stephen Boyd, Director, Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland
• Tressa Burke, Chief Executive, Glasgow Disability Alliance

Secretariat (Scottish Government)

• Amanda Shaw, Minimum Income Guarantee Policy Officer
• Caitlin Forsyth, Minimum Income Guarantee Policy Manager
• Claire Johnson, Minimum Income Guarantee Policy Support Officer
• 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

Items and actions

Welcome

The Chair welcomed all members and talked through the meeting agenda. Overview of timescales of remaining work and publication provided.  

Agenda item 1: final report discussion

The Chair recapped the decisions made at the last Expert Group meetings in November and December and explained what action had been taken to address feedback while drafting the final report. The roadmap was created to show how a MIG could be achieved over time, the Chair covered what is planned across the short, medium and long-term. Feedback on the draft report was welcomed and based on this today’s meeting will focus on framing, the initial steps, fair work, services and how to pay for a MIG. It was asked that risk and dependencies and the time-limited MIG are also covered.

Concerns were raised about the time-limited MIG agreed during the Expert Group meeting in November. Some members would like further discussion on this to understand more, including the benefit of this interim stage and its implications for a full MIG being realised. Further clarity has been sought but proposed this is taken offline and discussed between interested members. It was requested that a note or survey to capture views on this topic after would be valuable. 

Further clarity was sought on what the group are looking to achieve with a pilot so would like to see this discussed further, helpful to know if this is to capture preventative spend or poverty outcomes and such. Would suggest this is also taken offline.

Action: Secretariat to coordinate roundtable discussion on time-limited MIG and pilot and circulate note of decisions made. Survey also considered to capture support and final feedback. 

Initial steps

Questions were raised about the level of SCP proposed in the report and the five week wait. On SCP, the proposal would be to double this payment, but the poverty impacts of this will not be available until March which will provide further evidence on this decision. The call for £40 has been consistent for a few years, so with inflation it was thought this should be increased. 

On the five week wait, the proposal is to see this reduced to 2 weeks and not erased entirely. Thoughts on this were called for. 

It was noted that if it was a zero week wait we would be looking at advance payments which could bring an increased risks of fraud, as seen with UC when initially introduced. It would be preferable to avoid this so there’s rationale for a 2 week wait. The technical reports that will be published alongside will go into the deliverability options. 2 weeks was previously used before UC was introduced. 

Highlighted that the 5 week wait is one of the most significant issue with UC. There could be an option to introduce an exit payment. Proposed that a pro/con list would be helpful. 

Question raised about whether this would be passported or a standalone payment. Clarified that the 5 weeks wait proposal is in reference to improving the current system shorter-term and the full MIG would likely not have a wait period, or at least this would be shorter. Generally, members are in agreement that there should be no wait longer-term but happy to see this reduced incrementally. 

Decision: Members agreed that there should be no wait for a MIG in the longer-term vision but are content with this being reduced incrementally as an interim step. 

The principle of raising SCP to the proposed level is agreeable and pleased to see this go beyond the £40 that has been called for previously. Noted that the £40 is for within this parliament so it makes sense to plan for a larger increase for the time period outlined in the report and happy this accounts for inflation. 

Decision: Members agreed to the proposed increase to £55 SCP as an interim step towards a MIG. 

In terms of interdependencies, it was suggested everything that is devolved required some level of cooperation. There is a tension in the report that suggest a lot of progress can be made shorter-term, however there will be a lot of flexibility needed very quickly to implement the proposed changes. Concerned this makes this less implementable. Proposed that wording could reflect a more neutral position on the constitution, such as saying that devolved powers should be used fully and preparation made for future devolution and cooperation. 

There are some recommendations that require some flexibilities or cooperation and others that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to implement at all. There needs to be greater transparency on what is possible now, where there are dependencies within current powers and what required further powers. 

The original remit of the group called for what should be done – that may include further devolution – so it’s not entirely negative to state this. Not sure how influential recommendations to UK government would be so would still aim to see these targeted at SG. Would like to see the remit more clearly articulated in the report. Starting point should be about making full use of current powers. The two-child limit discussion has been helpful to demonstrate what’s possible. Proposed that this can be framed in a positive and pragmatic way and set out the opportunities that we have to move along the road within existing powers. 

Fair work and employers

Fair work within the initial steps focuses on local taxes and tax bonuses, and the real Living Wage and Living Hours. The Chair asked that we aim to reach a consensus on the position on both recommendations. 

It was explained that the Small Business Bonus Scheme (SBBS) is not a strong system so would advise against using this for the basis for any recommendation. Expectation is that the recommendation, as currently drafted, would likely be quite expensive, not see much benefit and may bring political push back. Would like to see this phase out and the money for this programme used differently. Suggested that the term conditionality for employers is clarified or replaced with employer responsibilities. 

There was agreement that the SG should be doing more than it’s currently doing on Fair Work First, noting there needs to be better employer pay in public contracts rather than the public purse offsetting poor wages through social security and other services. 

It was proposed that the recommendation on the SBBS is either amended or removed although it was highlighted this may disrupt the balance between work, services and social security. Members would like to see more sectoral bargaining, particularly around areas whether the Scottish Government are procuring work e.g. social care. 

It was flagged that young people are disadvantaged in the labour market due to having less experience, increasing rates may further disadvantage them. There could be other ways to support younger workers. Sectoral bargaining could be highlighted more as this has potential to improve the conditions the report makes the case for. 

On the other hand, and in agreement with the current position, it was explained that the group should be looking at equivalising minimum wage rates. It was noted that households with young people in work that live with parents can see consequences for household income and benefit entitlement. There are also young workers looking for work abroad due to better pay and opportunities so equivalising minimum wage rates should be a mechanism to help retain our workforce. There was agreement in the meeting chat, also noting that the moral and equity argument is stronger than the argument that levelling pay may create a disincentive to employ younger workers. Concerns about Living Hours being included, so trying to roll this out may be too challenging at this stage. 

Decision: Recommendation on equalising minimum wage rates to remain as currently proposed, however the inclusion of Living Hours may need reviewed or toned down. 

Services 

Feedback on services so far has indicated this should be strengthened and show a journey towards more universal services which meet people’s essential needs. 

It was recognised that the group have not explored the potential services has within a MIG. Services is the area where SG has the most devolved powers. Thought that Universal Basic Services would be a good end point and the origin of this work from the Social Renewal Advisory Board should be brought out in the report more. We need to have a vision for what we need on services.

Members suggested there may be calls that the group could adopt or highlight without fully building this into the roadmap. Two areas of consensus were sought, firstly on the specificity of the childcare recommendations and also on whether the longer-term recommendation should aim for Universal Basic Services. 

Looking at the pilot phase of the MIG, the pilot area could be selected to link to an ongoing programme e.g. where areas are testing an expanded childcare offer. 

It was raised that there is not currently enough emphasis on social care, even when this is articulated in the report, it doesn’t highlight this as being a political and economic issue. We need to keep an emphasis on preventative spend and that investment in services should not be slowed. 

Would like to see something a bit more honest and highlight that this work has no been fully developed – this was originally out of scope. There are powers within this area and SG has made recent changes to show the variability of services provision. 

Suggested that there should be specificity on the expansion of provision for 2-year-olds and would like to see more emphasis on the flexibility of childcare. The current offer is insufficient and costs for childcare are incredibly high. It was agreed that the report should amplify existing recommendations on childcare and other work, such as that completed by Close the Gap and One Parent Families Scotland. 

A change to recommendation 7 was proposed to acknowledge the findings from the WPI research that indicated that second earners may leave the labour market following the introduction of a MIG. Asked that this is drawn out more in the report and would like to see a recommendation that highlights this. 

Overall, it was agreed that more needs to be done to reflect the critical role of social care and childcare throughout the report – social care needs to be talked about as empowering and necessary for people to participate in society and the labour market. 

There needs to be clarity on the differences between services and costs – we might need different strategies and solutions for this. May need to separate this out. 

Decision: Agreement on the longer-term position for services, highlighting the importance of social care and childcare. It should also be recognised in the report that this element will likely require further exploration. 

Action: SR to provide support in drafting an update services section along with support from CM and CMa on childcare and social care provision. 

How to pay for a MIG

The sections that discuss how a MIG could be financed are new and will require further development and discussion, several members noted interest. The commissioned research is yet to complete and will be circulated once available.  

Action: Secretariat to circulate WPI research once available and organise roundtable to discuss findings and agree recommendation on how to fund a MIG.  

Agenda item 2: publication timeline and launch

The Secretariat will continue to address feedback in the report over the next few weeks and will be in touch to follow up on any specific comments if needed. Content and decisions mostly need to be locked down in February. Smaller meetings to discuss specific issues will be set up over next few weeks. There is still some outstanding work that also needs to be built in, this includes the procurement on how to pay for a MIG and modelling on the 5 week wait and Scottish Child Payment which are due in March. A final version will be share which will be for final agreement. 

Action: Expert Group members to support drafting by 20 February 2025. Secretariat to circulate outstanding tasks.