 Gwelch chi, amser. Mae yw Tamsyn yn ymdweud yw'r sefynydd. Fy fawr i ymddiwch. Mae'r sefynydd yn ymddiwch arall. Mae'r drim o'r drim o'r dylwys. Felly, felly i'n gweithio'r gweithio'r sgwpeth o'r bwrdd, mae'r gweithio'r ddau opaig yn ymddiwch, oes i'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio, a'r ddau o'r dweud yn ei ddechrau, i'r ddechrau'r lliwyddiol. Felly, mae'n ddau, ac yn ymddiwch, mae'n rhan o'r idea radigol yn ddechrau'r ddau. Felly, mae'n gweithio'r ddau opaig o'r ddau o'r ddau opaig. Felly, mae'n ddau o'r ddau o'r ddau o'r ddau o'r ddau o'r ddau o'r ddau. Felly, mae'n rhai. Mae'n ddau o'r teiri. a dwi leidio arall, ond ond yw'n gweld ffau llwyddau arall ddweud i'r Trydydd Lywodraeth, Ffynland o'r llwyddau, yr Unedig y Prif Weinidog yn Fontariau, yn yr ymdweud i'r Trydydd Lywodraeth yn Sgarland. Felly, mae'n cael ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod, Maen nhw'n ffordd o ru fatherion am bwerdd dda wedi bod y dweud yn ystod, i chi'r ymwyaf oherwydd ben yn sylfaen wedi bod yr oedd ymdod y dyn nhw yn Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, sy'n mynd i ddwyddiant y gallu cyfnod y gyllidegun yn geitafol, o bwci yn mynd yn 1986, ac yn gwydag oeddiodd wedi bod nhw'n gweithdeithio'r idea. Ddiwch drfôn nhw'n mynd yn Michael Sandel, beth dda chi'n gyngorol o hyn sydd ar gymhilydd Harford, a ddechrau of what money can't buy the moral limits of markets. We have Miss Nellie Crose who's been a prominent Dutch politician, was EU commissioner for competition most recently for the digital agenda for Europe and now sits on several corporate boards including Uber and Salesforce, ac mae'r CEO yw Amitab Kant yw'r llunio'r llunio'r llunio'r Llywodraeth Nidio Iog. Mae'n rhaid i'r Llywodraeth Cymru yn ymgyrch gyda'r Llywodraeth Nidio i'r Llywodraeth yn ymgyrch gyda'r Llywodraeth. Mae'r 1r 15 yma, rwy'n gweithio i'r panallus i'r ddweud o'r ffordd o'r myfyrdd yma, ...on the question of, as work changes, as work is changing, is a universal basic income really a solution to this problem first, Guy? Well, thank you very much and welcome to everybody. Thanks for coming to this session. When you've been working on a subject for 30 years and you're suddenly told you have four to five minutes to give your perspective, you feel a slight sense of awe, and I want to begin actually by a little poem from Barbara Wutton who said it's from the champions of the impossible rather than the slaves of the possible that evolution draws its creative force. And I use that in our 25th anniversary because we've been going through a period where we've been doing a lot of fundamental research on the feasibility, affordability, implications of a basic income and for many years totally ignored. But in the last couple of years there's suddenly been a huge surge of interest partly by a realisation about automation. Now, I want to stress that that is not my rationale for a basic income. It never has been, but it's quite useful because it's made us much more topical. The reason I fence that I've always fought for a basic income are three-fold. First, it's a means of social justice. This goes back to Thomas Payne and Henry George and people who said public wealth is created over generations. And any of us know or should know and have the humility to know that our income and wealth is fundamentally due to the contributions of previous generations and much more than anything you or I do ourselves. And therefore, if you allow private inheritance, we should also have public inheritance as a social dividend on public wealth created. That means of social justice is fundamental behind why I believe in a basic income. The second reason is that it is a means to enhance republican freedom. Republican freedom is different from standard liberal forms of freedom in the sense that it means freedom from domination by figures of authority using their arbitrary power. It is a mechanism for enhancing republican freedom. And the third reason is that it is a means of providing people with basic security, basic security. And in that regard, we claim, those of us who support basic income, it is not for eradicating poverty per se. It is for handling the issue of insecurity. I listened this morning to the very illustrious panel saying what should be done to help the squeezed middle class. I listened very, very intently. I couldn't hear a single policy that was addressed to the precariat or to the groups who are facing chronic insecurity today. Because that is behind this drift of populism. That is behind so many of the mental health problems and so on. Mental health is improved by basic security. Mental development is improved by basic security. And what we've found in our pilots, and we've done pilots, I wish people would look at the evidence rather than continue with their views. But we've done pilots covering thousands of people. And most fundamentally we've found that the emancipatory value of a basic income is greater than the money value. And I can explain that at length. But the point is that it gives people a sense of control of their time. So that the values of work grow relative to the demands of labour. So that the values of learning and public participation grow rather than just surviving. So that the values of citizenship are strengthened. The values of altruism and tolerance. We found the evidence from basic income experiments that show that these are enhanced. We know as individuals and groups that at the moment society is suffering from a deprivation of those values of altruism and tolerance. So for me I think a basic income is not a panacea. But it is part of a new distribution system that we should be building for the 21st century. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Another element which I think is so fascinating is that both the left and the right are very interested in the notion of a basic income. And I'd love your perspective on that. Thank you for getting the floor. And after inspirational remarks within four minutes I'm a bit back to earth and very pragmatic in the sense that we first should make it clear what universal basic income we are talking for. You can mean quite a number of things on that issue. It can be regressive. It can be progressive and it's depending on the level for then you have to answer. And I'm what I was mentioning a pragmatic and I am a former politician. I'm not any more a politician, but sometimes people say you are a politician for life. Well, so be it. But for me it's always but that's because I'm Dutch who is paying for it and what does it mean for other benefits for we shouldn't fill in as if nothing is done. There are social benefits and well it's one way or another. We learn that you can't spend one euro several times so to say. And being an economist by training and at that time but that is far in the last century so to say. I was reading Gilbraith. I was reading Sam Wilson. I was reading Friedman. I was later on faced with the Nixon administration who did a try out. So it's not new, rightly so. So you can discuss about the role of the basic income, the universal basic income. It can shrink the role of the government, but it can also expand. So flexibility of the concept is why there is an interest on left and right for depending on how you fill it in. You can always find friends for one version or the other. So impossible in my opinion to implement at this certain moment and I want to say at this certain moment. I'm not certain if within a couple of years there will be more experiments and rightly said there are experiments Finland will start. There are in different countries India will start so to say. But we shouldn't forget that the radical vision anyhow is a high level replaces large part of existing welfare system. And I can assure you also politicians if they are left or right, if they have to deliver first what can be cut then the enthusiasm is less than when you are saying shall we just find out and so on. So a more modest system and hybrid system in my opinion set out a low level replacing some welfare payments and that could be done. I'm nearby certain and then it would much blunter impact and lose many of the perceived benefits for then we should make another defense story so to say. Well I was already mentioning Finland California by the way also has a couple of experiments and basic income schemes clear tangible cost. That's not the problem but theoretical benefits for not yet in a way that we can just compare it. So the most innovative and least ideological argument in favor are made nowadays by technical entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley and I got it for they are of course trying to defend their own future and that is quite clear what that is. No one knows by the way in my opinion but perhaps I'm learning and getting food for that learning curve from my colleagues. No one knows whether automation will displace jobs. Of course you can say a number but no one knows exactly what is going to happen or produce a more gradual evaluation in types of work that people do. So for me the future quote unquote of work may need to become a reality before a convincing political case is made and that is fascinating for then we are in a field of arguing that can make a lot of explosion. You need a political mainstream no doubt about that and for me I was also thinking Canada has a right to work. It's in a law so to say human nature by the way so I'm a bit in between and therefore I also add human nature is what is for free has no value and I'm black and white but you'll get my point. That's something I think Michael will. Michael wants to come back to you. For example, health is important but it is really important when you are losing it so that is at stake. So in my opinion don't claim the future but work for it and then we are. I think we should come back later on to the Silicon Valley's interest as well. Mr Kant can you briefly just from the governmental perspective sort of talk us through sort of the attractions. It's fascinating to have that perspective. You know we run in India two very huge schemes. One is a rural employment guarantee scheme called the Manrega and we run a public distribution system which has been in operation for a very long time. Both these schemes despite attempts by successive governments are full of leakages. Huge amount of corruption they've been embedded with rampant corruption. One of the unique things about India today is that India's built up a huge infrastructure. One of the most revolutionary infrastructure in terms of biometric that is every single individual in India today has a dhar that is he has a biometric and he has he can either get direct payment based on either his thumb impression or in his iris. India's only country in the world which has 110 million biometric and a billion mobile phones today. So you are heading for very revolutionary changes in India. But the world of manufacturing is undergoing very revolutionary changes and changes are that you will move from low skill low pay. It's not that there won't be jobs there will be jobs but you will move from low skill low pay to high skill and high pay. And that would require radical restructuring of your education system that would require a major restructuring of your skill movement today. And it's not that there are no jobs there will be jobs but there are not the right kind of people available for those jobs at the moment. So there's a huge imbalance which is taking place the technology evolution has moved much faster than the structuring in the skill evolution. And therefore my belief is that if you were to do away with the rural employment guarantee scheme which has plagued with vast leakages and the public distribution system. And we when you couple that with a very radical disruption which has taken place in the Indian system right now through the process of demonetisation. What it has given to the government is that the Indian economy was highly informal economy. I mean you had a two trillion dollar economy a formal economy and you had almost a trillion dollar informal economy a black economy. And that black economy has been smashed and merged into the formal economy. So government has actually made all the black money made it absolutely white money now. And you are you've ended up with huge resources with the government. They've all reached the government bank accounts. And therefore you are going to end up with vast amount of taxes and with vast amounts of penalties which will be levied over the next two to three years. And the government's coffers will be quite rich in terms of this. So my basic assumption is that if you were to look at doing away with the rural employment guarantee scheme which are inefficient and the public distribution system. And my belief is that it's much better to pay directly straight into the individual account rather than going through any middleman. And you've been able to create a vast unique infrastructure which doesn't exist in any other part of the world. You'll be able to reach directly to the beneficiary. However having said that I'm a great believer in not giving money as grant. You create parasites if you give money as grants. And I worked very extensively in rural development and then with traditional fishermen in the state of Kerala in India. And one of the unique things about Kerala was its self help group movement. And particularly several self help groups which were led by women entrepreneurs. And they've been some of the most remarkable success stories of generating income through productive activities. And therefore my view is that you should provide universal basic income. But give it as a loan with interest free for a period of three years. But ensure that this money is repaid and is then used to recycle for productive purposes. And that will enable you to reach vast number of more people in the society. Great. Well it's an income. It's coming into the hands of the person. It's reaching the person directly. But if you are giving it essentially as an interest free loan for a certain period of time. Professor Sandala I know that you're fascinated by among other things the role of work and the importance of paid work in people's lives. If you'd like to comment on whichever aspects. We tend to think of work primarily as a source of income as a way of making a living. But of course work is also a source of meaning and identity and a place in the world. A way of contributing to the common good. And the debate about the basic income puts in sharp relief and forces us to confront and debate what really is the point and the purpose and the social meaning of work. Listening to my colleagues on the panel strikes me there are two very different arguments in the current debate about a universal basic income. There's the ethical argument going back to Thomas Payne and that guy summarized very well. And then there's the compensatory argument, the Silicon Valley argument based on automation. Now one might look at the current debate, notice these two strands of argument and conclude that well they both point in the same direction. So it doesn't matter too much really which one we embrace. I think that would be a mistake. I think that it matters a lot what reasons, what rationale, what principle governs the embrace of a universal basic income for the following reason. There are two principles that I think are important to preserve and honor in how a society relates work to rewards that are distributed. One principle that I think is important, we often lose sight of, is that we are not morally entitled to the full fruits of the exercise of our talents in a market society for all of the reasons that Guy summarized, that Thomas Payne emphasized. It's the indebtedness argument. We are mutually indebted for the success and the rewards our talents bring. So one principle that's important to affirm and remind ourselves is that one, that we're mutually indebted for whatever success we enjoy or for whatever troubles we encounter. It's not all our own doing, that's one principle. The other principle is partly in virtue of that, we have an obligation everyone to contribute to the common good typically through work and in whatever other ways. Now if the advantage of the ethical argument is that it emphasizes the mutual indebtedness and it doesn't suggest that the money is instead of working, it preserves the idea that whether or not one receives a basic income or warrants it to be idle to fail to contribute to the common good. But the compensatory Silicon Valley automation argument does not have this feature. If that were the primary rationale for adopting a universal basic income, the message that it would send, the social meaning that it would promote would be, here is a side payment, a way of easing the way into a world without work or a world in which work is obsolete for a great many people, which is another way of saying we're going to pay you off in exchange for accepting a world in which your contribution to the common good isn't really required and what you do with your time, that's your business. I think that would be corrosive of the sense of mutual obligation as well as the sense that we are mutually indebted for whatever success we enjoy. Thank you very much. It's fascinating. Ms Crose, can I ask you just to comment a little bit on Silicon Valley's interest and the fourth of the automation argument? Do you think that's really something that's driving the interest in a basic income at the moment? Well, it's broader than Silicon Valley. It is the robotising. But I was mentioning, so I don't blame myself, but just to put it in a broader context, we are nearby certain that certain of our tasks can be done on earth, can be done by robots and we should be pleased for, in most cases, that is not a lot of fun. So then the main issue of a human being being active in a society is at stake. And that means that the communication is extremely important. But what I'm fearing and I'm really grateful for the sharp analysis of my colleagues, is that I fear that in politics, and again I have been a politician for a long, long time, that it is just not pure and transparent in the arguments. So it depends on your left, right and what is. So I want this discussion in general terms very clear and transparent. It's not a matter of that you can stop robotising. And we shouldn't. And by an aging population, by the way, there are a lot of positive effects. So anyhow, it's difficult for a global scene talking about this principle. For then you need to be far more specific. But it's not that it is only automatisation and therefore people have to move to the side. It can be a very constructive consequence that you can get rid of certain issues. And by the way, it's more fun talking about, for example, the medical world. It's far more fun when you can specify on the specific issues that are at stake and not those issues that we have to do, but that can be done by a robot or that can be done. Now, the other very large topic, of course, is how you fund this. I mean, if you do some basic calculations, you end up for America, for instance, I think if you scrap a lot of existing welfare programmes, you'd still have to use those to fund a basic income. You'd still have to dramatically expand the share of tax as a proportion of GDP and you still only get around $10,000 a year. And the other issue, of course, is that billionaires would also be receiving the universal basic income. So there are a lot of contradictions around the difficulty of funding it and some inequity in who's getting it. Guy, you're well-practiced in speaking about the affordability and how you fund it. I'd love to hear some of those ideas. I think the... I've got to be blunt. The affordability question is a very easy one to answer. And I mean, just written a book where I've gone through the various ways of paying for a basic income. Somehow, with quantitative easing, the US government managed to fund quantitative easing of $475 trillion. If that money had been used to pay a basic income, every American household could have received $56,000. That's just one little example. I believe... Please may I continue, please may... You can come back to me afterwards. But I strongly believe that we must frame basic income as paid from rentier capitalism and from rentierism. Because at the moment, the corruption of capitalism about which I've written is primarily because the returns to property and intellectual property and the rentier income from natural resources are going to a tiny minority and we need to be sharing that. So something like the Alaska Permanent Fund or the Norwegian Fund, which was set up and now means that every Norwegian is technically a crone millionaire, had Britain set up the same fund, they could be paying out more than a basic income now. So what we are arguing for is you build up a fund, a sovereign wealth fund system, by levying on rental income and intellectual property and so on, and couch the debate as saying you're redistributing income as a system and not taxing the worker to pay a lazy person. That mustn't be seen. And what I want to say is regarded to Michael's point is that my own entry to this whole debate was precisely the need to reconceptualise what we mean by work. I believe this technological revolution that we're undergoing is actually creating more work. The only problem is that it's not being remunerated. It's contributing to growing inequality and the reason why Silicon Valley types are up worried is that they think all the income is going to be the owners of the robots and the people who were workers are going to be without any income. I've been asked across to California to talk about this and I'm advising on the California pilot which is taking place. And the last point I would like to make, and apologies for taking too much time, is in response to the Indian case. When we were launching our pilots in Madhya Pradesh and West Delhi where we were giving everybody a basic income, every man, every woman, every child paid through the mother, I remember Sonia Gandhi saying to us, what a stupid idea, what a waste. They will spend it on alcohol and tobacco. And at the end of the pilot she asked to see us again and she said, I wish I'd known, because people had used the basic income to improve their nutrition, family health, schooling, schooling performance. The petty entrepreneurship had flourished in the villages. And if anyone is interested they could either buy my book or see a video on the results. And the consequence was that they were generating more income. They were lowering public service costs because they were healthier, etc. And I would be very wary of turning it into a loan. A loan rewards the entrepreneurial and would increase the inequalities in those villages. Whereas everybody having a basic income there was a lot of pooling to help each other out, there was a lot of cooperative activity that took place, and it didn't sort out the potential winners from the losers. It increased community solidarity. And I'm delighted that the Indian government, as you know, is currently considering it. And I've had a lot of interaction with it and they're going to come out with this fantastic report, which is fundamentally important because a major government, for the first time, is going to be putting it up and say, let's discuss. And I think that's a big step forward. In a few minutes I'd like to open this up to the audience and just take some questions. But just very briefly, Mr Cantiff, you would just give us some perspective on how India sees the affordability. You made it seem as if it's no problem at all because of this windfall of tax, which is fascinating. How does that work on a year-on-year basis going forward? You know, there are huge inequalities in the Indian system right now. And if you were to look at the vast array of schemes which India provides for people below the poverty line, despite implementing them, you find that almost 33% of the children are stunted because of lack of good nutrition. You find that a Class 5 student is not able to read his mother tongue with Class 2. And once you are not able to do that reformation, then he always, throughout his life, remains behind. And that actually one-third of the population is actually getting back below the poverty line simply because they are not able to take care. There's a very heavy expenditure on tertiary care today. So we've done this initial exercise across that if you were to do away with the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, which has been a scheme under implementation across governments for quite some time, but it has several studies across the government, independent studies have shown that there are vast leakages and there's a huge amount of corruption attached with it, and so with the public distribution system. And if you were to look at the resources which would emerge as a consequence of this demonetisation process to the government, and you were to target, because India is very different. India is not like Netherlands or not like. It's bigger than 24 countries of Europe, plus another 30,000 people. So it's the vast population must be taken into recognition. So you look at basic universal income for people below the poverty line. And if you were to do that for all people below the poverty line, you'd be able to provide close to about a thousand rupees per month for them. And that is a fairly good amount of money to go directly into the bank account of the women head of that family, individually, women individually into that person. And therefore you're simultaneously, I mean this entire process is still under evolution, I mean it's still under discussion. But a thousand rupees per person below the poverty line would be a substantial amount of money to provide good purchasing power. And I think if India's ambition, India's growing at about 7.6% per annum, it's anosis of growth, but it's ambition and it's hunger is to grow at even higher rates of 9% to 10% for the next three decades or more. And you are confronted with a global scenario which is extremely unfavourable with protectionism and Brexit happening. And you have to create demand on the back of your domestic economy. So you have to spur rural demand in India. And that is one of the key challenges for India. How to drive growth at higher levels and create jobs simultaneously back on the back of domestic consumption. And that will give it a push. So if we could have some questions from the audience please. I think there should be a microphone around somewhere. The gentleman in the front row please. My name is Elia Selman. I am the publisher of an economic business and politics in Latin America during the last 15 years. We've been doing public policy called Transparency Conditional. It's money that is transferred to the poor people. And the poor people has to complain with some stuff like vaccinating their children, sending them to school, etc. Two questions. First of all, I would say that it happened in India, which is the populism thing. In some way, keep that benefit and take all the credit. And then they will produce the same party or the same power in the next election. One question is how you can do that. Because I think Transparency Conditional is very similar to basic economic. Second, we enjoy in Latin America like 12 years of economic boom because of the commodity price. As you know, this is changing very rapidly. The program has been put in Geo-party for the economic situation. And the second question is how you can fund that in a country like Latin America. Let me just respond very briefly. The Bolsa Familia program in Brazil. I first remember going there in the 1990s and advocating basic income. We have a strong basic income network in Brazil, as you probably know. And the Bolsa Familia was introduced with the conditionality that people had to send their children to school and to have medical checkups. And I remember talking with a minister, a good friend who joined Vian. And I said, look, this is unfair on the poor woman who's in a favela who hasn't got control of her children. She's desperate. She's stressed out. A little Johnny doesn't go to school for 85% of the time. That was the formal rule. Are you going to penalize her and the family as a result of that? And he looked at me and said, guy, we try not to impose the conditionality. Because he got the conditionality to satisfy the middle class that it was being done. Now, both are quite correct. Recent developments have tended to turn it away. But while it was operating at its best, the Bolsa Familia, what happened was the genicoefficient of income inequality fell dramatically, more so than at any other time in Brazilian history, the poverty rate also declined. And women's poverty relative to men's went down much more. So it was quite a useful lesson. I'm against conditionality and against the World Bank's support for conditional cash transfers. Where you impose behavioral conditions on the poor that you don't impose on other groups in society. That's fundamentally against my ethical principles. And I think that the lessons of the CCTs are now coming out that by accident some of them have gone unconditional cash transfers and they've performed just as well. And I think that is one positive lesson that's come out of it. Thank you. The lady in the front row, please. Thank you very much. Let me just say in terms of affordability that conditional cash transfers in Latin America are less than 1% of GDP. So they have gone a long way with a very small cost because there are things that we are doing that are much more expensive than 1% of GDP. The only country where they are more than 1% of GDP is Brazil, that has gone almost to three, but still is a very affordable program. So I think that the problem is not there. The problem is how you get conditional cash transfers, conditional or unconditional. We can discuss how you get it to everybody that is equal. Because the problem of clientalism comes when you choose the group that is poor but is your poor. If you go to all those that are equal, so it's a right. It's not given by a party or by a leader. And that will be the way not to go into clientalism and really go for the right agenda in terms of basic income. So there, the Indian saying of putting it directly into the bank account, that would address this problem. That's what is being done. Women's account. Two birds with one stone. Thank you. Gentleman at back, please. Thank you. My name is Alex Forrester. I run a non-profit in the United States that works with entrepreneurs in low income communities. It's very sensitive to what Professor Standing said about insecurity and the corrosive role that plays. But also what Professor Sandell said about the power of purpose and productivity and creativity. So I'm curious why we are talking about UBI as a standalone issue and not in the context of a larger connection between either EITC and a national public service or more of a privately organized marketplace using something like time banking or otherwise. Is there a way to connect universal basic income in a larger context like that? Guy, the one to you, I think. I'm glad you've raised EITC. EITC for those not familiar is an income tax credit that works in the United States. I think you could claim, and we're having to be rhetorical because of time, is one of the biggest boondoggles in welfare history. Billions are spent in tax credits which are effectively a subsidy to capital that are actually helping to keep down wages. The research is quite strong in this regard and it encourages inefficiency and all sorts of things. But just think what you could do with those billions and billions of dollars that are being spent in the earned income tax credits. And it's the same in all forms of tax credits. My own country spends billions of pounds on tax credits which have precisely the same effect and they could be part of the resources for helping to build up for the funds to pay for a basic income. On that thing, I just want to take one point which I didn't go into last time, which is that the biggest potential source now globally is to roll back fossil fuel subsidies. Now the Indian case, the fossil fuel subsidies come to about 5-6% of GDP. If you took those fossil fuel subsidies which caused all sorts of negative externalities away and put them into the fund for a basic income, you wouldn't get to 1,000, you would get to 500 rupees for every individual Indian. And then you could impose a fossil fuel tax because of the emissions and so on that are caused. So you've got potential sources of funding in various ways and I think that in the Indian case that is really an important source. I do wish that we had about twice the amount of time or even three times. I'm afraid that's all the questions that we can take for the time being. So what I'd like to do now is just go through each of our panellists and just ask what has been the single most important insight and if you could keep your comments really to a very brief word. I'm starting with Mr Kant. You know India is a highly unequal society and the extent of formalisation of the Indian tax structure is very minimal and therefore you are creating too many wealthy people who are not paying taxes at all and therefore to my mind a government which has been politically elected to provide equity and to create jobs and we'll find it in a historical moment when you're finding it very difficult to create jobs it's not able to ensure that the economy is able to grow and you are able to create adequate demands we'll find it very difficult politically to survive and you are heading for very radical social movements on ground simply because of lack of your ability to create jobs therefore I'm quite convinced as a civil servant that it's incumbent upon the government to provide a universal basic income of some form to people below the poverty line and that is doable if you are able to cannibalise and end all inefficient government schemes which are presently being run in the name of raising incomes of the poor so you do away with them and then go in for a universal basic income for people below the poverty line. Number one. Number two I made this point and since I've worked very closely with self-help groups across India and I find that once you create that entrepreneurial spirit particularly in self-help groups of women-led movements they've been extremely successful across Tamil Nadu, across Andhra Pradesh, across and since we are at the initial stages of this you need to create a movement where this funding is utilised for some productive purposes. Ms Croes, again if you could reflect on the discussion today and so far what has been an important insight from some of the other panellists comments. For me it's even clearer after listening to the audience but also to my colleagues that we need to be far more precise to have a decent discussion for the situation in India is completely different, Latin America is completely different compared to for example Western Europe. Having said that and I mentioned upfront that I'm not a strong believer from one side or another for I want to know what is your model and what does it cost just to make it clear again in the UK and I don't take my own country but in the UK when you are going for this system and when you are aware that 35 hours working per week 7.20 pounds per hour minimum wage when you are counting with 52 million over 18 so not for everyone so not for the kids then still you need to take into account that 680 billion pounds is involved in this system so I'm not saying you shouldn't but I'm saying you need to fund 680 billion having said that that is a third of the UK GDP and so far just facts and nothing more and what for me is the risky side of this type of discussions when we are not decent in what market are we talking of and till what account are we for I'm a great believer in your proposal for women and giving them a loan and the minimum credit and so on for that stimulating I'm a strong believer in linking it to another great case education, health and so on but having said that it is anyhow as far as I'm aware in Western Europe it's a matter if you are proposing this that you have to skip other social welfare issues and you can make a clear story for me that the social welfare system is not fair in certain countries of Western Europe so be it but then we need to be in the political arena willing and able to take that type of discussions and decisions for otherwise we are making nice proposals and we are not talking about who is paying the bill and what are the consequences of this paying the bill and a fund in Norway while they were lucky that they were on gas and that they were wise politicians at that time to make a fund out of it Professor Sandel, what has struck you most from the discussion? Well I was struck by the point was raised about conditional cash transfers in Latin America Guy said he didn't like conditionality because why should it's unfair to impose conditions on the poor that are not imposed on other citizens that made me wonder well maybe we should impose some requirements on all citizens and then I heard the contribution from the back of the room the point about what about national service of some kind so here's a suggestion a universal basic income coupled with a kind of conditionality that applies to all citizens rich and poor alike maybe to include some form of national service maybe to include a requirement of voting in elections as well as sending your kids to school it's a way of bringing together the two principles which I suggested we begin a sense of mutual indebtedness connected to a sense that everyone has an obligation to contribute to the common good Thank you, Guy Would you like to offer what struck you most? Well just responding to Michael's point I've actually article 29 of my precariat charter is for deliberative democracy to be supported by basic income so to require people to attend at least one political meeting a year and to vote in general elections but that must be a moral obligation once you make it into a legal obligation it brings the questions what sort of punishment do you impose and what all sorts of other problems but it is an interesting area what I wanted to conclude by is saying the big elephant in the room that hasn't snorted I think is the word which we usually get in discussions is the implications for work now the classic objection by Christian Democrats and Liberal Democrats the political centre is if you gave people a basic income they would stop work, sit down yet if you ask opinion polls 99% of people say when they're asked if you had a basic income would you stop work would you reduce your work they will say no and the fact is that we have found in our pilots in India, in Africa, in Canada we're finding it in other experiments people who have a basic income increase the amount of work not reduce it part of the reason is you remove the poverty trap and that's why I disagree with your poverty line approach because you have a poverty trap anybody who's below the poverty line in India which is a crazy system you would face a marginal tax rate of 90% because you'd lose the benefits as you got income in the Netherlands it's over 80% so the precariat, the people in the poverty trap situation if they go from a benefit at the moment a means tested benefit into a low wage job they're facing a marginal tax rate of 90% now how many people would turn out to work if you faced a marginal tax rate of that level the middle classes would revolt but that's what you require in your existing systems existing systems so you would actually increase the incentive to work because you'd remove the poverty trap you wouldn't lose your basic income if you started earning income from a job I think that's very important and final point is that it would help us in the emancipatory project of reconceptualising what we mean by work in the 21st century because work isn't just labour for a boss it's also caring for our relatives our family, our community it's all the sort of work that we need to do to prepare ourselves for living it includes part of education which is liberating us as citizens and for me the great virtue of having a basic income which we found in our experiments and also psychologists have found is it increases people to do work that is not labour but don't tell me the work of caring for my elderly mother or father is not productive I have short Anglo-Saxon words for that but I won't use it, I'll stop thank you very much on that note I'm afraid we're going to have to bring the session to an end if I can briefly share some of the main point of report was so fascinating firstly the idea that you know since both the sorry hang on a second so the fact that both the left and the right are supporters I think means no quick agreement on actually how you implement it the fact that the ethical justification is the best one not the compensatory one and that funding is still a hugely open question who pays the bill and with that just thank you to the audience for the questions and for your participation and thank you so much to our panellists thank you