Minimum Income Guarantee: Experts by Experience Panel report

Panel six: end of phase 1 review and consideration of services as part of the Minimum Income Guarantee

Prior to panel meeting six, Involve undertook a panel membership refresh. At this point 3 members left the panel and 8 members joined the panel. The aims of this panel meeting were:

• To integrate new members and provide an opportunity to clarify and review key concepts for returning members. A critical focus was to ensure that both new and existing members had a clear understanding of the role of the Experts by Experience Panel. This included addressing recurring questions about the current stage of Minimum Income Guarantee development, particularly concerning unresolved issues like cost implications.
• To reflect on the current stage of Minimum Income Guarantee development and where the panel felt they could add most value to the work planned by the Expert Group going into phase 2.
• To explore how services could support the implementation of the Minimum Income Guarantee, discussing the advantages, disadvantages, and considerations for using service provision to achieve a dignified quality of life as part of the Minimum Income Guarantee.

To support these aims members heard from:

• Rebecca Darge from the Minimum Income Guarantee Secretariat. Rebecca gave an update on the progress of the Expert Group and their planned workstreams to develop a Minimum Income Guarantee over the coming year.
• Seona Carnegie from the Minimum Income Guarantee Secretariat who explained how services can support people to achieve the Minimum Income Guarantee and reduce the need for individual payments when costs for essentials are met through services.

The core ways in which members felt they could add to the work of the Expert Group during phase 2 is summarised as follows:

• Members acknowledge their unique position to reflect on realities of life and diverse experiences including within the current system and interacting systems to inform the development of a Minimum Income Guarantee.
• Members were keen to test proposed messaging and communications plans.
• Members suggested that they could bring their experiences of everyday costs and financial management to work on delivery and costings.

It should be noted that some of the members felt particularly keen to know more about the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee and therefore the cost. For some members this became a sticking point that was holding them back from being able to consider other information as they wanted to be able to weigh it up against the level and cost.

In considering services as part of a Minimum Income Guarantee, members recognised the tension whereby universal services could reduce stigma, but also hinder the degree to which the Minimum Income Guarantee can be delivered in a way that meets individual needs. While not all members agreed that services were the best way to meet the Minimum Income Guarantee, the recurring theme throughout this section of the meeting was that if services are going to be part of the Minimum Income Guarantee, services themselves need to be fit for purpose, and that significant improvement and resource would be needed to improve all services to the extent that they would be fit for supporting people to meet the Minimum Income Guarantee. Members had a range of experiences with existing services which suggest that provider attitudes, lack of capacity, and inequality in access all contribute to current services being unfit to rely upon as a route to meeting the Minimum Income Guarantee level.