Minimum Income Guarantee: Experts by Experience Panel report

Panel three: defining a dignified quality of life

Panel meeting three aimed to:

• Understand members' lived experience of 'a dignified quality of life'.
• Build on elements of a dignified quality-of-life to guide the development of Minimum Income Guarantee levels.
• Consider how this intersects with the Minimum Income Standard^[1] (MIS) and how the MIS could be used to guide the setting of Minimum Income Guarantee level.

Members heard information presentations from:

• Abigail Davies from the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University who presented an overview of the MIS, explaining its development in response to the question "how much is enough", and detailing the methodology used to keep the data current.
• Chris Birt, Associate Director for Scotland at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and member of the Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group, discussed the details of setting Minimum Income Guarantee level. The presentation covered current MIS, how they compare to universal credit levels, and challenges in establishing Minimum Income Guarantee level, such as cost and public acceptability.

Members reflected on the MIS and valued the human-centred approach that acknowledges social participation and personal choice, beyond mere survival. They appreciated its utility for guiding charity work and influencing living wage standards. However, they also recognised limitations in the MIS's monetary focus and that it fails to fully encapsulate the diverse needs of different demographics, especially for individuals with disabilities.

The main outputs of this meeting focused on identifying the elements of a dignified quality of life as a first step to guiding what should be considered in setting the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee. Health (including eye care, dental health, and mental health services), meeting basic needs (such as adequate food, shelter, and clothing), access to services like the internet and public transport, and social participation and inclusion were all considered essential.

Other important but slightly less essential elements included self-care (like haircuts and gym access), parenting needs, employment, and education.

The discussion also covered the routes by which these elements of a dignified quality of life could be achieved, categorising them into financial, community, services, attitudes, and health, which were all considered important.

Through these discussions on a dignified quality of life the level at which a Minimum Income Guarantee is set, there were values-based tensions within the panel membership around whether increasing welfare benefit payments would lead to increased security, well-being, and ability to build a meaningful career and self-care, or whether it might lead to lower work aspiration. Similarly, tensions emerged around the national economic feasibility of supporting a high Minimum Income Guarantee level without creating unsustainable debt, or whether the direct financial costs of a Minimum Income Guarantee would be offset by reduced need for spending on poverty related impacts (in areas that include health, social care, well-being, education, and crime).

Members also discussed the media's role in shaping perceptions of the deserving versus undeserving poor, noting that some narratives could hinder ambitious Minimum Income Guarantee settings. Political challenges included securing necessary powers and cross-party support, while affordability and flexibility in responding to unique circumstances and inflation were identified as other significant hurdles. The discussions highlighted the complexities of setting Minimum Income Guarantee levels and the broad range of factors that must be considered to develop an effective and equitable system.