Good idea - but not radical enough. Amounts to UC without conditionality.

Other than a change in the level of conditionality required and potentially the value of the guarantee, I do not see much difference between an MIG and the current Universal Credit. The proposal of an MIG would require Means Testing, which I am not wholly against. However, it should be noted that as soon as a system opens to means testing, it then involves additional expense as it is more complex to assess. Before proceeding down MIG, the government should show the cost difference between MIG and UBI.

However, I am generally supportive of an MIG, along the lines of Universal Credit principles without the conditionality. Working in Financial Inclusion I have long been of the opinion that conditionality is pointless. The vast majority of UC claimants will seek work without prompting on their own terms, are not fit to do so (either short or long term) or it is impractical for them to do so (due to caring or childcare commitments). There is a publicly funded industry around conditionality which would represent a massive saving if it were removed.

The Key Elements of a Minimum Income Guarantee should be
Personal Allowance (tailored to working age and pensionable age)
Housing
Child Element
Health and Disability Assistance
Childcare
Carer's

The benefits of a MIG scheme are many.
Savings from reduced administration costs around conditionality
Improved health outcomes particularly in poor mental health, which would have resultant savings for health services
Improved educational outcomes for children and improved access to further and higher education by removing the need for Student Loans (another saving as well by reduced admin costs associated with awards and recovery)
Building more cohesive communities and improving the discourse around social security.
Increased government revenue through VAT etc.

Although I would note that these outcomes would not be as positive in MIG as they would under UBI, and I remain unconvinced that there would be a substantial cost difference in the round between the two schemes and the current system. when looked at in the round.

Risks
Cost - governments have a tendency to overspend on infrastructure, delivery, IT. This would have to be closely monitored.
MIG has the potential to create a them and us attitude, whereas UBI would promote cohesiveness but would have to be accompanied by significant taxation reform to ensure higher earners do not disproportionately benefit.

Next Steps
It is a major change in culture and could experience push back. Broad consultation involving stakeholders with society. This would include employers, trade unions, community organisations, HSCPs and potentially a citizens assembly to get a broad view from society.

Utilise powers currently within SG domain to vary and amend UC. These could be used to amend conditionality and amend some of the perverse elements (such as the poor treatment of 4 weekly paid claimants), This would effectively allow a MIG scheme.

I believe that I have presented a balanced and objective view, with constructive points to consider.