SNP and Lib Dems sympathetic to UBI; Labour and Conservatives against

Opening the debate, Crawley said a UBI means that every citizen is provided with a ‘subsistence income’. It would mean secure, regular payments into every individual’s bank account, without threat of disruption. A recent study by the University of York found a UBI would cut poverty by more than half, she said.

The MP explained that The Scottish Government explored the feasibility of introducing a UBI, but found that it was ‘impossible’ under the devolved settlement. Instead, the Scottish Government commissioned research on a Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG). (The distinction is that a UBI is for everyone irrespective of income and individual needs such as disability, whereas a MIG is means tested and targeted to those on low incomes.)

The UK Government already has the technology to implement a MIG, claimed Crawley, explaining that we already have tapers in place for the universal credit system, which has markers to ensure that those who need additional funds will get them. She accepts there are no studies that can show comprehensively the long-term benefits of UBI, because there has been no extensively researched pilot here or in most countries. Universal credit has failed to streamline and simplify the welfare system, and a universal and ‘destigmatising’, more compassionate welfare system would decrease depression and anxiety rates, she argued.

Beth Winter, Labour, said UBI would provide everyone with enough to cover the basic cost of living, and ensure financial security was a basic human right. Winter said: “It overcomes the negative features of means testing, particularly the stigma associated with claiming social security benefits; it is simple, unlike the current complex welfare system; and it would stimulate demand in the economy by putting money in people’s pockets.” She backs the small-scale pilot scheme that is being run by the Welsh Government which gives care leavers £1,600 per month.

Gareth Davies, Conservative, is against UBI saying there is a great deal of uncertainty about how much UBI would cost taxpayers and the British Exchequer. He argued that a UBI would exacerbate inequality and give billionaires and millionaires a cheque through the post that they did not need and the dignity of work and the security of a regular pay cheque have been proven to be the best way out of poverty.

The Liberal Democrats have policy in favour of UBI. Treasury Spokesperson Christine Jardine said that, with the welfare system not up to supporting people through the cost of living crisis, the time has come to do things differently. “What has become abundantly clear is that what has been missing throughout all these crises is a crucial element of universal protection—something that perhaps none of us realised we would need.”

Jardine responded to Gareth Davies’s observation that UBI does not exist anywhere in the world by saying that, in 1942, Beveridge’s vision of the welfare state did not exist. She continued: “We need a new vision to equip us for the 21st century and the very different challenges it brings… We are not talking necessarily about sending everybody cheques every month, and millionaires getting cheques. We are talking about looking at people and seeing if their standard of living, income and quality of life reaches a basic level.”

Jim Shannon, DUP, said we need UBI because the working poor are working full time but can still not make ends meet. That burden cannot fall only on small business owners by demanding increased wages from them, because sometimes that is not possible, he said.

SNP spokesperson Ronnie Cowan was another advocate of UBI saying it “represents something better: hope and opportunity.” He acknowledged it would cost a lot to implement and run, but he thought that, once we consider “the cost of the existing system, the health benefits of basic income - both physical and mental - the increase in start-up businesses, the greater take-up in further education, the freedom it gives people to live a life well spent, it is more than cost-effective.”

Cowan thought the tax system could be adjusted so that if he, as an MP, is given £12,000 extra through basic income, he pays back that £12,000, so it nets off. “Alternatively, we could use sovereign money, or we could have a citizens’ wealth fund. It does not have to be topside down.”

From Labour’s frontbench Alison McGovern explained why UBI is not the party’s policy. She said the social security system has two purposes. First it smooths incomes over a person’s lifetime and secondly, it ‘addresses the needs that people have to enable their full participation in society, so, those who have extra costs, the obvious example of which is people who have a disability’. She said there is no proposal on the table to help people through different life stages when they need it, and help lift people out of disadvantage and into the dignity of work.

Beth Winter intervened to remind McGovern that, prior to the 2019 election, the then shadow Chancellor commissioned a research project on a pilot of basic income. A document was produced that proposed a UBI pilot and piloting UBI was included in the 2019 manifesto. Is that something Labour continue to support, she asked. McGovern did not answer directly.

Concluding the debate, Work and Pensions minister David Rutley began by talking about the effectiveness of universal credit. He said that universal credit is a dynamic benefit which is in “strong contrast to a universal basic income, which does not fluctuate based on earnings in the same way but mandates a standard monthly allowance paid to all working-age adults.”

The minister said: “We have real, evidence-based concerns about UBI on a practical basis because it does not provide the work incentive that we believe is vital in these sorts of systems. We have fundamental concerns, too, about what it might mean for targeting. Many of the UBI schemes that have been put in place are not targeted at those with greatest need.”

Rutley said his concerns are based on evidence from trials in different parts of the world, such as Spain, Canada and, in particular, Finland. The Finnish Finance Minister concluded that the case was closed and there must be conditionality in the social security system, said Rutley.

The session is here.

By Hamant Verma, CIOT Senior External Relations Officer

Is UBI a good idea? Email your thoughts to [email protected] .Your thoughts may influence our future work on this.