Minimum Income Guarantee: Experts by Experience Panel report

Panel two: fairness in the Minimum Income Guarantee

This panel meeting took forward the recurring theme of fairness from panel meeting one and had two main aims:

• To further the discussions from the first meeting on fairness, applying it to the existing welfare systems, what it would mean to have a fair system, and how fairness aligns with the principles of a Minimum Income Guarantee used by the Expert Group.
• To evaluate proposed terminology to be used to describe the whole system, exploring how these names could influence and reflect the understanding of fairness.

To support this member heard from:

• Phillip Whyte, Director of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) Scotland, presented on the current UK social security system managed by the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP), with a focus on Universal Credit (UC). The session highlighted UC's role in the broader benefits system, including statistics on unclaimed benefits and fraud, issues with the UC process, and the rationale and effects of conditionality within the system.

• Seona Carnegie from the Scottish Government Minimum Income Guarantee Policy Team presented the principles for a Minimum Income Guarantee as developed by the Expert Group early in their collaboration.

Members reviewed fairness in the current UK social security system, particularly focusing on Universal Credit (UC). They perceived the current system as fundamentally unfair, especially due to its sanction policies, although a few members felt that there was a need for conditionality.

Members then considered the Expert Group principles and whether these should be amended in any way in order to fully account for fairness. Most members advocated for a Minimum Income Guarantee that excludes behavioural and work-based requirements, emphasising support over penalties and fostering a person-centred approach that builds trust and expects honesty. This includes encouraging a positive reciprocal relationship and removing stigmas associated with 'the undeserving poor', as well as eliminating systemic hostility.

However, some members still felt a need to maintain some form of conditionality, suggesting that the Minimum Income Guarantee should include clear consequences for dishonest declarations regarding personal circumstances. Members felt that fairness in the development of the Minimum Income Guarantee, should consider both fairness towards those who would receive payments under the Minimum Income Guarantee system, and fairness towards those who meet the Minimum Income Guarantee level through paid work and other means of income. This was most tangibly seen in discussions around fair work and the Minimum Income Guarantee.

The Panel proposed that the current Expert Group principles could better relate to fairness if strengthened with clear, transparent definitions and a consideration of varying needs across different groups, paying particular consideration to the needs of carers and people with differential needs.

The members also engaged in a Mentimeter vote on potential descriptive names for the Minimum Income Guarantee. The majority preferred the name 'Minimum Income Guarantee'.