Universal Basic Income

Debate between Julian Knight and Ronnie Cowan

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered universal basic income.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate.

If I asked people what a universal basic income is, I would get many and varied answers. It is even referred to with different titles, as universal, unconditional, basic or citizen’s income. That is not a bad thing, because it highlights the fact that we do not have one clear-cut, complete, top-to-bottom definition. Until we do, we cannot decide if universal basic income is a solution or not, but I hope we can agree that the current welfare system has failed.

If we were all given a blank sheet of paper and asked to design a welfare system, nobody—but nobody—would come up with the system we have now. They would need thousands of sheets of paper and would end up with a mishmash of abandoned projects, badly implemented and half-hearted ideas and a system so complicated that it lets down those who need it the most. We need only look at the personal independence payment and at tax credits to see recent examples of people being punished by a system that is supposed to support them. At the same time, the current system allows those who would abuse it to do just that. The expected expenditure on UK social security and tax credits in 2016-17 is forecast to be more than £218 billion. We are spending 28% of our total public expenditure on social security, but it is still not clear whether our welfare system is helping or hindering the most vulnerable people in our society.

Inequality in the UK continues to get worse as we tinker around the edges of our welfare system. The richest 10% of households in the UK hold 45% of the nation’s wealth; by contrast, the poorest 50% own just 8.7% of that wealth. We have seen that inequality manifest itself in different ways, across gender, age and nationality. For instance, the average household in the south-east of England has almost twice the amount of wealth as the average household in Scotland.

Despite attempts to improve the current system, in-work poverty has vastly increased, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimating that two thirds of children living in poverty in the UK are in working families. The rapid increase in food bank usage also reflects the failure of our system. In 2008-09, the Trussell Trust issued almost 26,000 three-day emergency food supplies; by 2015-2016, that figure had grown to more than 1.1 million, with almost one in three of recipients being referred to food banks because of a delay in their benefit payment.

Unfortunately, my constituency has some of the worst rates of deprivation in Scotland. Of the thousands of cases that my office has handled, I would conservatively estimate that at least one in 10 are related to benefits. I am seeing people who are left confused and anxious by a system of mystifying complexity. It lacks compassion; it processes people as if they were mere numbers going through a machine; and its rigid inflexibility prevents people from accessing the support to which they are entitled. I believe that it leaves people feeling less and less empowered.

Sharon Wright, a senior lecturer in public policy at the University of Glasgow, has said:

“Received wisdom dictates that benefit receipt is the outcome of making ‘wrong choices’. Welfare reforms have become increasingly punitive, on the rationale that strong disincentives and coercion are required to prompt the ‘right choice’.”

As she points out, claiming benefits is not a life choice; it is the result of unforeseen circumstances in a person’s life, such as unemployment, sickness or disability. However, welfare recipients still face hostility and a strong social stigma that defines them as being workshy or lazy, or as having given up on a sense of personal responsibility. I could spend the entire debate highlighting the failings of the welfare system, but I can summarise them by simply stating that our welfare system is not working.

A universal basic income could be a solution to this problem. In the words of Malcolm Torry, the director of the Citizen’s Income Trust:

“Technology lying idle, human creativity frustrated, wealth flowing from poor to rich, and finite resources uncontrollably exploited …we are still waiting for the next new key concept. A Citizen’s Income might be just what is required.”

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He mentions the EUROMOD report by Mr Torry, and I wonder whether he saw the part of the report in which it is stated that, in order to support a universal basic income, the basic rate of income tax would have to rise to 48 pence in the pound. Can he say how on earth that is supportable in a modern economy?

[Ronnie Cowan]

As I said at the very start of my speech, there are many and varied approaches to this issue; no one has worked up the complete solution at this stage. What we are aiming for is acknowledgement of the fact that our current system is not fit for purpose, and the people of the United Kingdom should be looking for “best of breed”. If we are not prepared to take on that challenge, then we are not in the right job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ronnie Cowan]

Yes, we are going there. I believe that it is called the “gig economy”, in which people share jobs and try to find a better work-life balance. People do not want to have to put in all those hours of work in simply to make money if it is not within them that they want to spend all that money. That chasing of the capitalist dream is hopefully something that is confined to the past.

If we genuinely want to create a more effective system of state support, we need to be prepared to address the difficult questions. Part of the challenge will be to bring together the patchwork of individuals and organisations that have expressed an interest in pushing forward the UBI agenda. Groups such as Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland and the Citizen’s Income Trust have helped me to outline what options are open to us in defining a basic income.

It is argued that the benefits of introducing a basic income include: reducing poverty and boosting employment; providing a safety net from which no citizen will be excluded; and creating a platform upon which all people are able to build their lives. More generally, it could be argued that a basic income would bring about increased social cohesion and mark the end of incentives that discourage work and saving.

In the time available to me today, I can only touch on the wide range of questions that will need to be answered in order to implement such a scheme. Who will be eligible for basic income? What will be the rate of payment? Over what timeframe will it be implemented? Most important, can the affordability of such a scheme be demonstrated? Having clear answers to these questions is vital, but that will not be enough; we will also need the political will to make changes.

The Irish Government published a Green Paper on a basic income as far back as 2002. It concluded that a basic income would have a substantial positive impact on the distribution of income in Ireland and would reduce poverty in a more effective way than the existing welfare system, but 14 years later the concept has not managed to evolve into a fully formed Government policy.

[Julian Knight]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again; he is being most generous with his time. The Irish Government came up with this proposal in 2002, but 14 years later they have still not been able to implement it. Also, would he reflect on the fact that in Switzerland this idea was actually put to a referendum and two thirds of voters voted against it? Is not the real reason that these people have gone against a basic income is that they realise it destroys the incentive to work?

[Ronnie Cowan]

I am not here to speak on behalf of either the Irish Government or the Swiss Government, but there is absolutely no indication that providing somebody with a basic income removes the incentive to work. Instead, what it does is to put life choices in front of people, so that if they want to study part time, work part time or work on a farm voluntarily they will not be penalised for doing those things, and therefore it is more likely that people will be prepared to take on work at a level that suits them.

If policy makers regard the basic income idea as simply an academic or abstract economic concept, we will never see it being used to break down the worrying levels of poverty and inequality that we have in the UK. The United States, Canada, Namibia and India have all piloted basic income schemes, while Finland and the Netherlands plan on trialling limited local schemes.

Many Members will be aware that Switzerland has already held a referendum on the implementation of a basic income. Although the proposal was rejected, that shows that other nations already have a more developed understanding of the concept. The charity GiveDirectly has announced that it will launch a full basic income trial. The project will involve at least $30 million and academic support from leading researchers. The trial will fully adopt the basic income model by making regular cash payments to every resident in several villages in Kenya.

I secured this debate with the humble notion that I do not have all the answers to the questions. I hope to facilitate discussion, to debate with my parliamentary colleagues and to consult the relevant organisations about the benefits and feasibility of the basic income concept. I believe it was first proposed by Thomas Paine in his 1797 pamphlet “Agrarian Justice” as a system in which at the “age of majority” everyone would receive an equal capital grant—a “basic income” handed over by the state to each and all, no questions asked, to do what they wanted with. Could this be an idea whose time has finally come?

On 25 May 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced before a special joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American to the moon before the end of the decade and returning him safely. Not for one minute did he intend to design the rockets himself, and he had no ambition that I know of to be on the flight. His not unrealistic and ultimately correct proclamation was built on the premise that he knew America had the time, the money, the brain power and the will to achieve the goal. He challenged the American people to succeed and they rose to that challenge. I stand here in front of the Chamber today and I challenge all of us to work together to create a fairer welfare system—one that does not trap people in poverty, but instead acts as a platform from which the citizens of the United Kingdom can build better lives for themselves.

Dormant Betting Accounts

Debate between Julian Knight and Ronnie Cowan

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered dormant betting accounts.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this Westminster Hall debate. Members here today will know that problem gambling continues to blight too many communities across the United Kingdom. Like alcohol or drug addiction, gambling has the terrible power of being able to destroy a person’s life and inflict financial and emotional misery on victims and their families.

In recent years, there has been greater recognition of gambling-related harm and the damage that it can cause. Despite the greater awareness and increased funding for support services, it has been suggested that there are still around 450,000 problem gamblers in the UK. The sheer scale of the problem makes it clear that the UK Government have a responsibility to do more. I have devoted much of my time as a parliamentarian to pursuing this issue. I believe that the money contained in dormant betting accounts could, and should, be used as an additional source of revenue for organisations to assist people with gambling-related harm.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and I share his concern about the devastating impact of gambling addiction, but does he recognise that the gambling industry has started to take some measures in that respect, such as the “When the Fun Stops, Stop” campaign, which is very high profile? Betting is a private transaction between an individual and a bookmaker and we must be very careful about setting a precedent for the state confiscating private property, even in such a worthy cause.

[Ronnie Cowan]

I have no issue with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I agree that “When the Fun Stops, Stop” is a very strong campaign led by the gambling organisations, and they should take credit for that. I am not here to lambast gambling as a concept; what we are looking at is problem gambling and facilitating a trigger that I believe we can use to help people who find themselves in that unfortunate situation.

[Ronnie Cowan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and colleague, and hopefully I shall shine some light on that later in my speech.

Why do dormant betting accounts exist? When I was a boy in the ’60s, I used to enjoy watching the racing on the television with my Uncle Charlie. We would spread out the pages of the newspapers in front of us and gamble. We would watch the racing, pick our horses and calculate how much to bet. Spread betting taught me more about checks and balances than my economics teacher ever did. Because Charlie was a regular gambler, he had an account with the local bookies. From the comfort of his living room he phoned the bookie and placed his bets. Charlie would drop into the bookies during the week and pay his debts or pick up his winnings. The bookie knew Charlie, and the books were balanced weekly.

As technology has advanced, so has our ability to access gambling, which we can do from our phones or tablets at any time of the day. We also now live in a more disposable world. People once worked their entire lives at the same company, lived in the same street all their married lives, banked with the same bank and went to the same place on holiday every year. Now it is easier to change, and we are encouraged to change and move and to take up new offers.

Betting companies tirelessly promote free bets and other generous offers to encourage new customers to sign up. It is not unusual for people to have half a dozen or more accounts with different companies to take advantage of those offers. People can only remember so many user names, passwords and accounts, and eventually, they lose interest or forget about an account that may only have a few pounds in it. Over the passage of time, the accounts become dormant, but do we know how many accounts there are and do we know how much money they contain? The answer to both of those questions is no.

In preparation for the 2010 Department for Culture, Media and Sport report, companies were approached to give a financial breakdown of the amount of money involved in dormant or similar accounts. A majority refused, either on the grounds of commercial confidence or because they claimed to be unable to produce the figures. Betfair provided data about the size and scale of dormant betting accounts, but on a confidential basis. Under the current arrangements, dormant betting accounts are simply reverted to the company profit line after a specified amount of time.

[Julian Knight]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he defines as dormant betting accounts? For exactly how long does he think there has to be no activity on the account for it to qualify as dormant?

[Ronnie Cowan]

I shall certainly go on to do that because it is an area of some concern. There is no definition of that as yet and I think there should be.

Companies have different definitions of “dormant”. For instance, Gala Coral define it as 400 days of no activity whereas Ladbrokes define it as 12 months. The report commissioned in 2010 for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport proposed that when a betting account became dormant, 25% should be added to the company profit and 75% should be transferred to good causes. The report also concluded that if a voluntary scheme could not be established with betting companies, legislation should be enacted requiring them to contribute 75% of the unclaimed amount. Dormancy in this instance was defined as 18 months of no activity and the money was only taken once all efforts had been made to contact a customer regarding their account.

In April this year, I wrote to Ladbrokes, Gala Coral, Paddy Power, William Hill and Betfred regarding their policy towards dormant betting accounts and problem gambling. Unfortunately, Betfred and Paddy Power did not respond to my letter. William Hill, Gala Coral and Ladbrokes gave me the courtesy of a response, but all strongly rebuked my statement that the issue of gambling is one that blights a number of communities and households.

The response from Ladbrokes was perhaps the most insightful for people wishing to learn how gambling companies view their own services. It said that

“rather than a blight on local communities and individuals as you suggested in your letter, I strongly believe that our shops are a real part of their local areas. Many of our colleagues know their customers by name and face and our shops often provide a social outlet for customers to meet other people, over a cup of tea or coffee, whilst having a flutter on their sport of choice.”

Betting companies may paint a rosy picture of gambling as a harmless pastime, but that is a misconception. The reality is that the proliferation of betting shops on our high streets is seen by my constituents as an unwanted symptom of economic and social decline.

Online betting accounts are also part of the problem, making it easier than ever for problem gamblers to become bankrupt, fall behind on their mortgage payments or experience divorce or family troubles because of addiction. Is that the experience of most gamblers? No, it is not. Do the majority of punters bet responsibly? Of course they do. The experience of the problem gambler—that is who we are seeking to help—and the wide-reaching ramifications of their actions far outweigh the experiences of the majority of punters who visit the bookies for a cup of tea and a £2 bet. For example, I am aware of one problem gambler who stole almost £850,000 to fund his addiction. The Gambling Commission concluded that Gala Coral had failed in its duty to prevent money laundering and problem gambling and added that the company’s safeguards against both were inadequate. Gala Coral agreed to pay back £850,000 to the victims of the crime and to pay £30,000 to the commission for the cost of the investigation.

Some will say that enough has already been done to tackle problem gambling and that adding money from dormant betting accounts is not necessary. They will highlight the financial contribution that betting companies already make to organisations that assist with gambling addictions. Figures released by the Gambling Commission show us why we should be sceptical of those who say that enough is already being done. Last year, British gamblers lost £12.6 billion and losses have risen every year since April 2011. Online betting accounted for a third of the total losses. In 2014-15, the charity GamCare reported an 18% increase in calls from problem gamblers and a 39% rise in clients receiving treatment.

We can conclude without hesitation that betting companies have no interest in voluntarily signing up to a dormant betting account scheme such as that envisaged in the 2010 Government report. Their view has been unambiguously stated through their unwillingness to outline how much money is in dormant accounts and their hesitation in engaging with me on the subject.

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister takes away three points from my contribution. First, the UK still has significant and worrying levels of problem gambling. Secondly, betting companies have no interest in voluntarily signing up to a scheme as proposed in Don Foster’s 2010 report. Thirdly, only the UK Government have the power to ensure that good causes benefit from the potential funding locked in dormant betting accounts. The UK Government have a duty of care and the time for paying lip service is over. It is time for the UK Government to act on the recommendations laid out in the 2010 report, and in turn help the many individuals and families who have been affected by gambling-related harm.