Minimum Income Guarantee: Experts by Experience Panel report

Principle one: fairness

The Minimum Income Guarantee should be delivered with fairness and in a non-discriminative and non-punitive manner (without sanctions) to all, reducing inequalities and eradicating poverty.

Rationale

This principle is about fairness in wider society^[2], and reflects that panel members think that a Minimum Income Guarantee should be delivered through a combination of earnings, social security, cost of living reductions, access to services, and should be available to all eligible households.

Considerations

• Analysis of poverty data and a review of what can be done within the circumstances of the economic environment. Ensure there is enough pre-Minimum Income Guarantee data to ensure good analysis broken down by different characteristics/needs.
• Thinking about the development of the Minimum Income Guarantee, consider how society contributes to its funding potentially through taxation and equitable income based contributions.
• What a household looks like could be different due to variable personal circumstances - what this looks like needs to be reviewed to address fairness.
• A diverse range of stakeholders should be engaged including government agencies, community groups, advocacy groups, and individuals affected for decision-making processes in setting the Minimum Income Guarantee levels to make it precise and measurable. In addition to other systems that need reform.

Support

29 members voted on the level of support for this principle. Overall supported by 96% of panel members of which:

• 62% (18 members) 'strongly support'
• 38% (11 members) 'support'
• and 3% (one member) 'strongly oppose'

Members were asked, "if you do not support principle one, please tell us what would be needed for you to support it".

Three members who already supported the principle provided comments on how their level of support could improve:

"I do support, but realistically there will have to be some sanctions for those who misuse or abuse".

"Remove non punitive, it is misleading. It makes people think there are no consequences where they abuse the system. All we want to do is get rid of daft sanctions".

"Support the principle but wary of the total absence of sanction. 'Freedom' can only be defined in relation to 'perceived barriers''. What barrier is preventing freedom? A sanction free system would only be relevant if the participants rights were metered in relation to their societal responsibilities."