English: Diolch, Llywydd. Wales has one in three children living in poverty, and this figure is rising, and this is a damning indictment of the impact of the Conservatives' cruel austerity agenda and consequent cuts to welfare, and 20 years of inefficient governing by Welsh Labour. The Institute of Fiscal Studies have indicated that, if nothing changes, the child poverty figure is likely to increase to 40 per cent of all Welsh children living in poverty by 2020 - that's this year - with welfare reform a significant factor. Whenever radical proposals to tackle this are put forward, the reaction of conservatives, in both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, has been the rhetorical demand of, 'How much does this cost?' A question with the subtext of, 'How much are you going to tax my large income to pay for the scheme for poor people?' So, it's worth laying some context for this first. Poverty costs Wales £3.6 billion of public spending on its consequences every year. For example, spending on health and social services deals with the illnesses that are caused by poverty. And, of course, the cost of paying £35 per week to every child in a low-income household will vary depending on how we define low income and how focused and targeted we need to be. With an estimated 200,000 children living in poverty, giving the payment to all children in poverty would be around £364 million a year, although other options to define eligibility could see that bill drastically increase or reduce. At the present moment, we want to be keeping all of the options on the table, because we want to reduce child poverty, and as long as we lack powers over the administration of welfare, we would, of course, need to negotiate with the Department for Work and Pensions so that the cash payment wasn't simply removed from other benefits - and I wouldn't be surprised if that particular department was vindictive enough to do just that. But, the principle of topping up the incomes of the lowest earning households is one that should have a political consensus, based on the evidence of its effectiveness. Some sections of the UK media have been running a relentless propaganda war to convince people that the economic problems that they face are either the fault of immigrants or the undeserving, feckless poor, as opposed to Wall Street creating credit default swaps. Topping up the incomes of low-income families works. Even the right-wing American magazine The Atlantic supports this principle, and it argues: 'In many cases, cash programs are simply much more effective than in-kind transfers at turning dollars spent into positiveoutcomes.' Neither do any of the programmes evaluated from around the world find that cash payments result in increased tobacco or alcohol use, as the prejudiced propaganda would always have people believe. The evidence shows that these programmes are cheaper than the alternatives. So, it turns out that the cheapest and most effective ways of tackling the problems caused by low incomes is to make those incomes higher. Who would have thought that? So, with Wales experiencing the highest rates of child poverty in the UK, and 20 years of failed initiatives and limitations in what Wales should have been doing, isn't now the time for a radical change in our approach? Plaid Cymru thinks it is.
Welsh: Diolch, Lywydd. Mae un o bob tri o blant Cymru'n byw mewn tlodi, ac mae'r ffigur hwn yn codi, ac mae'n gondemniad damniol o effaith agenda gyni greulon y Ceidwadwyr a thoriadau i les yn sgil hynny, ac 20 mlynedd o lywodraethu aneffeithlon gan Lafur Cymru. Mae'r Sefydliad Astudiaethau Cyllid wedi nodi, os nad oes unrhyw newid, fod y ffigur tlodi plant yn debygol o gynyddu i 40 y cant o holl blant Cymru yn byw mewn tlodi erbyn 2020 - eleni, hynny yw - ac mae diwygio lles yn ffactor pwysig. Pryd bynnag y cyflwynir cynigion radical i fynd i'r afael â hyn, ymateb ceidwadwyr, yn y Blaid Geidwadol a'r Blaid Lafur, yw gofyn yn rhethregol, 'Faint y mae hyn yn ei gostio?' Cwestiwn gydag is-destun, 'Faint o dreth rydych chi'n mynd i godi ar fy incwm mawr i dalu am y cynllun ar gyfer pobl dlawd?' Felly, mae'n werth gosod rhywfaint o gyd-destun ar gyfer hyn yn gyntaf. Mae tlodi'n costio £3.6 biliwn o wariant cyhoeddus i Gymru o ran ei ganlyniadau bob blwyddyn. Er enghraifft, mae gwariant ar iechyd a gwasanaethau cymdeithasol yn ymdrin â'r afiechydon a achosir gan dlodi. Ac wrth gwrs, bydd y gost o dalu £35 yr wythnos am bob plentyn ar aelwyd incwm isel yn amrywio yn dibynnu ar sut rydym yn diffinio incwm isel a pha mor benodol y mae angen i ni fod. Gydag amcangyfrif o 200,000 o blant yn byw mewn tlodi, byddai rhoi'r taliad i bob plentyn mewn tlodi yn costio oddeutu £364 miliwn y flwyddyn, er y gallai opsiynau eraill i ddiffinio cymhwysedd olygu bod y bil yn cynyddu neu'n lleihau'n sylweddol. Ar hyn o bryd, rydym am gadw'r holl opsiynau ar y bwrdd am ein bod eisiau lleihau tlodi plant, a thra na fydd gennym bwerau dros weinyddu lles, bydd angen inni negodi â'r Adran Gwaith a Phensiynau fel na fyddai'r taliad arian parod yn cael ei dynnu o fudd-daliadau eraill - ac ni fuaswn yn synnu pe bai'r adran benodol honno'n ddigon milain i wneud hynny. Ond mae'r egwyddor o ychwanegu at incwm yr aelwydydd sy'n ennill y lefelau isaf o gyflog yn un a ddylai gael consensws gwleidyddol, yn seiliedig ar y dystiolaeth o'i heffeithiolrwydd. Mae rhai rhannau o'r cyfryngau yn y DU wedi bod yn ymladd rhyfel propaganda di-baid i argyhoeddi pobl bod y problemau economaidd sy'n eu hwynebu naill ai'n fai ar fewnfudwyr neu'r tlawd anhaeddiannol, da i ddim, yn hytrach na Wall Street yn amnewid diffyg credyd. Mae ychwanegu at incwm teuluoedd incwm isel yn gweithio. Mae hyd yn oed y cylchgrawn Americanaidd asgell dde The Atlantic yn cefnogi'r egwyddor hon, ac mae'n dadlau: Mewn llawer o achosion, mae rhaglenni arian parod yn llawer mwy effeithiol na throsglwyddiadau mewn nwyddau wrth droi doleri a wariwyd yn ganlyniadau cadarnhaol. Nid oes yr un o'r rhaglenni a werthuswyd o bob rhan o'r byd yn gweld bod taliadau arian parod yn arwain at fwy o ddefnydd o dybaco neu alcohol fel y byddai'r propaganda rhagfarnllyd bob amser yn dymuno i bobl ei gredu. Dengys y dystiolaeth fod y rhaglenni hyn yn rhatach na dewisiadau amgen. Felly, y ffyrdd rhataf a mwyaf effeithiol o fynd i'r afael â'r problemau a achosir gan incymau isel yw sicrhau bod yr incwm hwnnw'n uwch. Pwy fyddai wedi meddwl y fath beth? Felly, gyda Chymru'n profi'r cyfraddau uchaf o dlodi plant yn y DU, ac 20 mlynedd o fentrau aflwyddiannus a chyfyngu ar yr hyn y dylai Cymru fod wedi bod yn ei wneud, onid yw'n bryd bellach am newid radical i'n dull o weithredu? Mae Plaid Cymru'n credu hynny.