English: Thank you. I'm really pleased to be able to respond to what has been a really interesting debate. The idea of a universal basic income has much to commend it. If it were introduced within a coherent set of reforms to the tax and welfare system, its advantages have the potential to deliver economic gains to women and to disadvantaged groups in particular. The Welsh Government is, of course, fully supportive of those objectives and a trial could, in principle, help to establish how far these objectives could be realised in practice. Of course, no matter how attractive a policy is in principle, there are always some complications, limitations or unintended consequences that might risk undermining the contribution it can make to the goals of tackling poverty and inequality if they're not fully addressed and assessed. If a universal basic income were to be paid at a level that would make a real difference to people's standards of living, this would inevitably come with a high cost, and rather than being a criticism of UBI, this is simply a recognition of the reality that UBI would be intended to make a transformational difference to people's lives. Just for illustration, if a full universal basic income were paid in Wales to all working-age adults and set at the level of the official living wage, the cost would be in very round terms around £35 billion a year. If set at the level of the real living wage, the cost would be around £40 billion. And again, just for illustration, these figures are around twice the size of the Welsh Government's budget and, as a further comparison, income tax in Wales raises in total just over £5 billion. Of course, the costs could be much reduced if universal basic income was paid at a lower rate, but, of course, this would then reduce its attraction. Naturally, the introduction of universal basic income would also increase tax revenues and remove or reduce the need for some benefits. So, it therefore would require a comprehensive redesign of the whole tax and benefits system and, of course, most of the elements in this system are not devolved. It's important to recognise that even if a full universal basic income of the type that we've talked about were introduced, research indicates that some of the most disadvantaged people could be worse off, unless some of those elements of the benefits system were retained, at least in a modified form. So, obviously, we would have to be very much alive to that. Those who might be worse off would include large families and, particularly, families where members are disabled. In addition, the level and structure of taxes would need to change, both to ensure that the overall system was as progressive as possible, and also to raise the additional revenue that would be required. Very careful design work would therefore need to be undertaken to minimise the risks to disadvantaged groups, and to ensure affordability. When faced with such a complex change, I think we should also consider whether the desired objectives could also be secured more quickly or more effectively by other reforms to existing taxes and benefits. A good place to start would be reversing the disastrous cuts to welfare benefits introduced by the current and the previous Conservative-led UK Governments, and restoring the cuts that have been made to the funding of the public services on which those on the lowest incomes most depend. Once public services have fully been restored, we should also consider whether a model based on the development of universal basic services, with a focus on the services that are most intensively used by people on low incomes, could offer better outcomes than the provision of income in monetary form. A trial of universal basic income could go some way to helping us assess the benefits and the risks of making such a fundamental change, comparing it with the alternatives and determining what we would need to do to minimise the risks. In the Welsh Government's view, such a large and thorough trial would be essential before committing to a complete recast of the tax and benefit system. The Welsh Government would be open to such a trial taking place in Wales, but we have to be realistic that such a trial would not be possible without the active co-operation of the UK Government, and this is because of the interaction of universal basic income with the tax and benefit system, as I've just described. If such a trial were offered, we would also require that conditions were met to ensure that the Welsh Government and this Senedd were able to play a significant role in the design, governance and accountability of any scheme. Were the Welsh Government to make payments to individuals without the co-operation of the UK Government, this could simply result in them being ineligible for existing benefits or paying more in tax. Aside from the fact that this would not then be a proper test of the effect of an unconditional payment, it would, in effect, result in the transfer of resources from the Welsh Government to the UK Government. And, sadly, our recent experience of the UK Government's approach to the taxation of our payments to social care workers doesn't suggest that we should expect their active co-operation. While we were able to make similar payments to flood victims without incurring those deductions, it's clear that we can't expect a consistent and reliable response from the UK Government on these matters. Any trial should also be developed with social partners, and I recognise that there are some mixed views amongst those partners on the impact of any UBI scheme on job security and pay. I'm told that one unintended consequence could be an increase in precarious employment practices, or rates of pay that fail to recognise fair reward. So, quite rightly, UBI advocates would argue that any scheme would need to be backed by higher minimum wages and stronger regulations on zero-hours contracts to guard against these risks. So, while the Welsh Government is open to the principle of a trial, the timing of any trial and the subsequent wider introduction of UBI must be dependent on there being in place a UK Government that is a true partner in our objectives on poverty, inequality and fair work, but, of course, I'm more than happy to continue the conversation. Thank you for a really useful debate.
Welsh: Diolch. Rwy'n falch iawn o allu ymateb i'r hyn a fu'n ddadl ddiddorol iawn. Mae gan y syniad o incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol lawer o rinweddau. Pe bai'n cael ei gyflwyno o fewn cyfres gydlynol o ddiwygiadau i'r system dreth a lles, mae gan ei fanteision botensial i sicrhau enillion economaidd i fenywod ac i grwpiau difreintiedig yn arbennig. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru, wrth gwrs, yn gwbl gefnogol i'r amcanion hynny a gallai treial, mewn egwyddor, helpu i ganfod i ba raddau y gellid gwireddu'r amcanion hyn yn ymarferol. Wrth gwrs, ni waeth pa mor ddeniadol yw polisi mewn egwyddor, mae yna gymhlethdodau, cyfyngiadau neu ganlyniadau anfwriadol bob amser a allai greu risg o danseilio'r cyfraniad y gall ei wneud i'r nod o drechu tlodi ac anghydraddoldeb os na chânt sylw llawn a'u hasesu. Pe bai incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol yn cael ei dalu ar lefel a fyddai'n gwneud gwahaniaeth gwirioneddol i safonau byw pobl, byddai hyn yn anochel yn golygu cost uchel, ac yn hytrach na bod yn feirniadaeth o incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol, dim ond cydnabyddiaeth yw hyn o'r realiti mai bwriad incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol fyddai gwneud gwahaniaeth trawsnewidiol i fywydau pobl. Er enghraifft, pe bai incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol llawn yn cael ei dalu yng Nghymru i bob oedolyn o oedran gweithio ac wedi'i osod ar lefel y cyflog byw swyddogol, byddai'r gost yn fras iawn oddeutu £35 biliwn y flwyddyn. Os caiff ei bennu ar lefel y cyflog byw go iawn, byddai'r gost oddeutu £40 biliwn. Ac unwaith eto, i ddarlunio'r hyn a olyga, mae'r ffigurau tua dwywaith maint cyllideb Llywodraeth Cymru ac fel cymhariaeth bellach, mae treth incwm yng Nghymru'n codi cyfanswm o ychydig dros £5 biliwn. Wrth gwrs, gellid lleihau'r costau'n fawr pe bai incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol yn cael ei dalu ar gyfradd is, ond wrth gwrs, byddai hynny wedyn yn lleihau ei apêl. Yn naturiol, byddai cyflwyno incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol hefyd yn cynyddu refeniw treth ac yn dileu neu'n lleihau'r angen am rai budd-daliadau. Felly, byddai angen ailgynllunio'r system dreth a budd-daliadau gyfan yn gynhwysfawr ac wrth gwrs, nid yw'r rhan fwyaf o'r elfennau yn y system hon wedi'u datganoli. Hyd yn oed pe bai incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol llawn o'r math y buom yn sôn amdano yn cael ei gyflwyno, mae'n bwysig cydnabod bod ymchwil yn dangos y gallai rhai o'r bobl fwyaf difreintiedig fod yn waeth eu byd oni bai bod rhai o elfennau'r system fudd-daliadau'n cael eu cadw, ar ffurf wedi'i haddasu o leiaf. Felly, yn amlwg, byddai'n rhaid inni fod yn effro iawn i hynny. Byddai'r rhai a allai fod yn waeth eu byd yn cynnwys teuluoedd mawr ac yn enwedig, teuluoedd lle mae rhai o'r aelodau'n anabl. Yn ogystal, byddai angen i lefel a strwythur y trethi newid er mwyn sicrhau bod y system gyffredinol mor flaengar â phosibl, a hefyd i godi'r refeniw ychwanegol y byddai ei angen. Felly, byddai angen gwneud gwaith cynllunio gofalus iawn i leihau'r risgiau i grwpiau difreintiedig, ac i sicrhau fforddiadwyedd. Wrth wynebu newid mor gymhleth, credaf y dylem hefyd ystyried a ellid sicrhau'r amcanion a ddymunir yn gyflymach neu'n fwy effeithiol drwy ddiwygiadau eraill i drethi a budd-daliadau sy'n bodoli eisoes. Lle da i ddechrau fyddai gwrthdroi'r toriadau trychinebus i fudd-daliadau lles a gyflwynwyd gan Lywodraethau presennol a blaenorol y DU dan arweiniad y Ceidwadwyr, ac adfer y toriadau a wnaed i ariannu'r gwasanaethau cyhoeddus y mae'r rheini sydd ar yr incwm isaf yn dibynnu fwyaf arnynt. Pan fydd gwasanaethau cyhoeddus wedi'u hadfer yn llawn, dylem hefyd ystyried a allai model sy'n seiliedig ar ddatblygu gwasanaethau sylfaenol cyffredinol, gyda ffocws ar y gwasanaethau a ddefnyddir fwyaf gan bobl ar incwm isel, gynnig gwell canlyniadau na darparu incwm ar ffurf ariannol. Gallai treialu incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol wneud llawer i'n helpu i asesu manteision a risgiau gwneud newid mor sylfaenol, gan ei gymharu â'r dewisiadau amgen a phenderfynu beth fyddai angen inni ei wneud i leihau'r risgiau. Ym marn Llywodraeth Cymru, byddai treial mor fawr a thrylwyr yn hanfodol cyn ymrwymo i ail-lunio'r system dreth a budd-daliadau'n llwyr. Byddai Llywodraeth Cymru yn agored i dreial o'r fath gael ei gynnal yng Nghymru, ond rhaid inni fod yn realistig na fyddai treial felly'n bosibl heb gydweithrediad gweithredol Llywodraeth y DU, a hynny oherwydd y rhyngweithio rhwng incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol a'r system dreth a budd-daliadau, fel rwyf newydd ddisgrifio. Pe bai treial o'r fath yn cael ei gynnig, byddem hefyd yn mynnu bod amodau'n cael eu bodloni i sicrhau bod Llywodraeth Cymru a'r Senedd hon yn gallu chwarae rhan bwysig yn y gwaith o gynllunio, llywodraethu a sicrhau atebolrwydd unrhyw gynllun. Pe bai Llywodraeth Cymru yn gwneud taliadau i unigolion heb gydweithrediad Llywodraeth y DU, gallai hynny olygu na fyddent yn gymwys i gael budd-daliadau presennol neu eu bod yn talu mwy mewn treth. Ar wahân i'r ffaith na fyddai hyn wedyn yn brawf priodol o effaith taliad diamod i bob pwrpas, byddai'n arwain at drosglwyddo adnoddau o Lywodraeth Cymru i Lywodraeth y DU. Ac yn anffodus, nid yw ein profiad diweddar o ymagwedd Llywodraeth y DU tuag at drethu ein taliadau i weithwyr gofal cymdeithasol yn awgrymu y dylem ddisgwyl eu cydweithrediad gweithredol. Er ein bod wedi gallu gwneud taliadau tebyg i ddioddefwyr llifogydd heb orfod cael y didyniadau hynny, mae'n amlwg na allwn ddisgwyl ymateb cyson a dibynadwy gan Lywodraeth y DU ar y materion hyn. Dylid datblygu unrhyw dreial hefyd gyda phartneriaid cymdeithasol, ac rwy'n cydnabod bod rhai safbwyntiau cymysg ymhlith y partneriaid hynny ynglŷn ag effaith unrhyw gynllun incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol ar ddiogelwch swyddi a chyflogau. Dywedir wrthyf mai un canlyniad anfwriadol fyddai cynnydd mewn arferion cyflogaeth ansicr, neu gyfraddau cyflog nad ydynt yn cydnabod tâl teg am waith. Felly, yn gwbl briodol, byddai cefnogwyr incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol yn dadlau y byddai angen i unrhyw gynllun gael ei gefnogi gan isafswm cyflog uwch a rheoliadau cryfach ar gyfer contractau dim oriau i warchod rhag y risgiau hyn. Felly, er bod Llywodraeth Cymru yn agored i egwyddor treialu, rhaid i amseriad unrhyw dreial a chyflwyno incwm sylfaenol cyffredinol yn ehangach wedyn fod yn ddibynnol ar sefydlu Llywodraeth y DU sy'n bartner gwirioneddol yn ein hamcanion mewn perthynas â thlodi, anghydraddoldeb a gwaith teg, ond wrth gwrs, rwy'n fwy na pharod i barhau â'r sgwrs. Diolch ichi am ddadl wirioneddol ddefnyddiol.