Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group minutes: June 2024

Attendees and apologies

• Russell Gunson, Chair, Head of Programmes and Practice, The Robertson Trust
• Anna Ritchie Allan, Executive Director, Close the Gap
• Andy White, Senior Officer, Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership
• Carmen Martinez, Coordinator, Scottish Women’s Budget Group
• Catherine Murphy, Executive Director, Engender
• Chris Birt, Associate Director, Joseph Rowntree Foundation
• Emma Jackson, Strategic Lead, Citizens Advice Scotland
• Gerard 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
• Peter Kelly, Director, Poverty Alliance
• Ruth Steele, Head of Social Security Futures, Scottish Government
• Satwat Reham, Chief Executive, One Parent Families Scotland
• Sharon Wright, Professor of Social Security, Glasgow University
• Tressa Burke, Chief Executive, Glasgow Disability Alliance

Secretariat and observers

• Caitlin Forsyth, Minimum Income Guarantee Policy Manager, Scottish Government
• Jane Watson, Product Owner, Scottish Government
• Nicola Cowan, Minimum Income Guarantee Policy Support Officer, Scottish Government
• Seona Carnegie, Minimum Income Guarantee Policy Manager, Scottish Government

Apologies 

• Mubin Haq, Chief Executive, Abrdn Financial Fairness Trust  
• Rachel Statham, Associate Director, Institute for Public Policy Research  

Items and actions

Welcome

The Chair welcomed all members to the meeting and re-introductions were completed. 

Agenda item 1: status update and next steps

The Chair spoke through the timeline and proposed how the Expert Group would want to sign decisions off whether that would be in-person, online or via correspondence. 

Concerns were raised about this as it is not clear how decisions are made and if members are signing up to everything. Divergence is noted throughout comments in the papers which outlines potential differences. Need to clarify the process and options for disengaging. 

Action: Editorial Group discuss sign off process at the next meeting. Editorial Group to draft proposal for Expert Group.

Members agreed that meeting in-person was beneficial, and it was suggested to meet again before the final report. 

Action: Secretariat to arrange a date for further in person meeting to agree final report.

There was an ask to amplify calls being made by Disabled People Organisations for action, as well as doing the separate piece of work on MIG premium for disabled people in final report. 

Concerns around the intersectionality procurement was raised and how it might be coming too late. However, the journey equalities have been on over the past 2.5 years was flagged and how a lot of lessons have been learned. 

Action: Secretariat to send the intersectionality ITT to CM and AR. (complete)

It was mentioned that co-dependencies on further devolution can be captured in individual papers or separate chapters across the board but was asked how we are addressing data, DWP dependency and unintended consequences of a MIG. There was a slight disagreement on this as these difficulties are highlighted in the delivery paper.

Unclear if and why we are piloting, is it about testing impacts and evaluation to reduce uncertainties? Need to discuss this further. 

Agenda item 2: work

SR gave an overview of what this agenda item would entail. Emphasising the importance that we don’t make people fit into a work environment not suited for them.

The group then broke off into three separate groups to discuss the questions. 
There was not a strong call from members for JC+ as members were unclear the difference it would make and how it would look in practice. 

The work on-going to develop a Fair Work Agreement in retail was highlighted. They have faced resistance from employers. It is industry led but employers aren’t invested. Unsure how it can be delivered. It was highlighted that there is a real flaw in voluntary approach from the equality perspective, only aspect that changes practices is the law. This is something the MIG needs to consider. 

Members suggested we change the language of “most people should reach the level through paid work” to “most people already do”. We should also use a different word than conditionality when referring to employers as we have already said the MIG has no conditionality, using it here becomes confusing. 

We focus a lot on fair work; however, it is also important to focus on safe work for people which includes absenteeism and health and safety. However, the lens of which health and safety is looked through is male dominated, not proactive and occupational health is punitive in some cases. Don't recognise harms and risk - woman are often disproportionally impacted.

Agenda item 3: services

CB led on the services agenda item and provided an overview. If we are using MIS as an income threshold, services will come down to cash vs services. More cash they can afford more but services can provide. Not just about affordability, but accessibility too.

The group separated into three separate groups.

Feedback on services fairly contributing to a MIG:

Members felt there are some overarching questions on clarity in terms of what it is we are trying to do with services and the suggestions being made. Concerns that a MIG could end up mitigating failures elsewhere rather than addressing the problem – for example, energy. 

Cash first approach feels right for social security but not clear if it’s right for services. Need to be really clear on unintended consequences. 

Access and equality of services is vital, uptake needs to be maximised free of stigma and shame. Members flagged at sometimes free services can have poorer uptake as quality can be reduced. 

If we are trying to move most people forward then we need to consider the trade-offs, does it entrench some groups further in poverty – those in rural areas and disabled people. 

Feedback on childcare:

There is a clear position on childcare, but needs caveated with questions around availability and suitability. Interactions with the labour market need to be considered, it should support everyone, especially women to access jobs they want to do so they hours need to be suitable when it comes to childcare.

Childcare is only the start of the services discussion - transport, social care. Including a notional cost because they aren't available or deduction because they are available. UBS needs to be considered again.

Feedback on addressing household costs:

Council Tax covered in MIS but if people were to be removed from that then what would the impact be. How far do we need to go? 

Housing - rents, mortgages. On the rent side, go for a similar system separate housing payment assessed separately based on your costs based on household composition. Needs to be improve but in principle it is about right. Mortgages, we should focus on mortgage interest. 

Childcare for younger age groups, including babies (9 months – 2 years) is more expensive that provision for 3 and 4 year olds. Scottish Government are doing pilots to lower the age to 9 months but how do we push that further? The group agreed action is needed for younger age groups, in addition to expansion of the 3 and 4 year old offer.

WPI report highlights the risks and costs, but how do we mitigate them? This includes work disincentives and the need for a strong childcare offer. If we don’t recommend them because of the costs that are attached, then the result is we have a MIG with too many risks. 

Agenda item 4: Social Security

RG led on the Social Security agenda item. Highlighted there was a variety of papers at the last Expert Group meeting and today’s is on initial steps and deliverability of those. Elements of the guarantee - proposal as it stands is that the first step is building guarantee, then progress on level for some, then that level for all.

Concerns were raised around the language and use of the word ‘guarantee’. If it’s a guarantee, then everyone should get the minimum income however if we build that and they will not get the full amount of the minimum income then people might lose faith in the policy. It would be a guaranteed level of the current system and abolishing conditions and sanctions, and if we can’t do it, we will need to think about language. 

Group discussion

• is there something else in that space we could look and think about if we are skipping past devolved powers then we need to think how we make it a better service to underpin the guarantee
• it was raised that alignment and automation for FSM and clothing grant could be the first steps however members were unsure on this as many have been arguing for them since the elements were introduced and doesn’t feel like it’s a substantial enough ask. We should look at our own offer in Scotland and how we could strengthen it. This point was supported by members
• concerns we have invested so much into SCP but it doesn’t do what it is meant to do, it has limitations and families are still missing out. There is an option to create this as a standalone benefit but will rely on families being on a UKG qualifying benefit as we are not implementing a separate means test
• reiterated its more about adequacy rather than a guarantee
• potential risk of topping up the system with the destitution built in then it’s not a MIG. We are trying to break it down so it’s digestible for delivery and funding that can be built upon
• might be beneficial to contact DWP researchers and ask for any analysis they can share on what is deducting people's wages
• there’s the opportunity to capitalise on our priority on tackling child poverty and reducing those targets. Appetite in doing everything for children
• it was agreed that the Scottish Government can do more with their current powers, and we need to prioritise what they can do now

Action: secretariat to look at the discussion and provide options on updating the workplan with options to potentially pause or scale back and what needs to be prioritised.