Item 6 is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21, and the subject is universal basic income. I call on Jack Sargeant to move the motion.

Motion NDM7384 Jack Sargeant

Supported by Adam Price, Alun Davies, Bethan Sayed, Dai Lloyd, Dawn Bowden, Helen Mary Jones, Huw Irranca-Davies, Jenny Rathbone, John Griffiths, Leanne Wood, Mick Antoniw, Mike Hedges, Rhianon Passmore, Siân Gwenllian

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes:

a) the damage poverty does to life chances and that work is no longer a guaranteed route out of poverty;

b) that the pandemic has forced more people into poverty with increasing numbers of residents having to turn to charitable support like food banks;

c) that, even before the pandemic, UK growth was poor and we face the growing challenge of automation, placing increasing numbers of jobs at risk;

d) that a universal basic income (UBI) gives people more control over their lives, would alleviate poverty and have an accompanying positive affect on mental health;

e) that a UBI would create jobs and encourage people to access training opportunities; 

f) that a UBI allows people the space to become more involved in their community and support their neighbours.
 
2. Calls on the Welsh Government:

a) to establish a UBI trial in Wales;

b) to lobby the UK Government for funding to establish a Wales-wide UBI.

Motion moved.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. I'm very grateful to the Senedd Business Committee and to those that supported this motion allowing our Senedd to be part of the growing conversation around a universal basic income. The universal basic income is not a new idea, but it is an idea that is starting to make its voice heard. As always, there is resistance to change and some will always insist that looking to improve people's lives just isn't possible. These voices have been raised before in the cause of resisting change, saying we can't afford to do better: when children stopped being sent down the mines, when the introduction of the welfare state and pensions were mooted and, of course, when our magnificent NHS was brought into being.

In making the case for a UBI trial in Wales as a first step to Wales adopting the policy, I thought I would share with you what sparked my own interest in the subject. It was initially a very basic question: how do we avoid the ills of poverty in a world that is so chaotic and changing? How do we create a platform of security that allows people to grow, to learn, study and to fulfil their potential in an age of increasing uncertainty? What COVID has shown us is that we can and we should intervene to ensure everyone can be an actor in a market economy. As always, the people in the forefront of my mind are the amazing residents of Alyn and Deeside. My community has seen economic calamity before. My generation grew up in the shadow of the huge job losses at Shotton steel, and it is still the single biggest redundancy in western Europe. This devastating event could be repeated again across a whole range of industries due to automation job losses. This time, the Government needs to be working for us and not against us.

Artificial intelligence is set up to take even more jobs, and we could even make it serve humankind and embrace it, or we can allow it to create a wave of job losses that are not replaced. Alyn and Deeside has been identified as the constituency with the most to lose. It is not just manufacturing, retail and transport where changes have happened; thousands of white-collar jobs in the legal profession, accounting and healthcare will soon be done by AI. There are other huge changes that we are already going through or that are hurtling towards us that mean we may need to intervene to ensure people have the stability of a genuine safety net and springboard.

Llywydd, the first factor is already with us, and it can be seen all around us: poverty. Poverty is becoming endemic—homelessness and food poverty being the most visible signs. Footballer Marcus Rashford has recently shone a light on this issue, using his own personal story to explain just how terrible it is to go to school hungry. The effects of this can and often do last a lifetime. Now, we often kid ourselves that poverty is an issue for other people, but, friends, let this fact sink in: one third of households are a month's paycheck away from homelessness. Now, in a world where people's lives are increasingly precarious, what answer do you think we would get if we stretched that figure to four months? Another important contributor to needing to look at a UBI is the increasingly insecure nature of work, and the flatlining of wage growth for all but a wealthy few. A recent Trades Union Congress report stated that much of the employment created in the UK in recent years has been low paid and insecure, as reflected in the increasing use of zero-hour contracts and the growth in gig economy jobs.

The final factor is global warming, and the very real risk that, if we don't change the way we think about growth, there will be nobody around to benefit from it. Unsustainable booms where we don't take into account the need to go carbon neutral will be catastrophic. Now, this change, whilst necessary, will not be pain free, and there will be losers as well as winners. So, how we do we support them through it? Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern really sums up my position: growth is pointless if people aren't thriving. Ardern said that Governments should instead focus on the general welfare of citizens and make investments in areas that unlock human potential. She pointed to New Zealand's new well-being budget, which seeks to expand mental health services, reduce child poverty and homelessness, fight climate change and expand opportunities.

'Economic growth accompanied by worsening social outcomes is not success'—

Ardern said—

'it is failure.' 

So, what exactly am I asking for? After all, a trial seems quite vague. But, Members, really, it is quite simple. I want the Welsh Government to select a group of people and see if their outcomes are improved by a UBI. Such a group could be care leavers or the recently redundant in an industry particularly hit by COVID. We would then support this group while seeing if our trial matches the positive results of trials elsewhere. A trial in Canada demonstrated that young people are more likely to stay in training; a study in Finland demonstrated that people in receipt of a UBI are more likely to work. Now, this is in contrast to universal credit, which actively punishes work. 

I understand many, particularly on the small-state Conservative wing of politics, will say we can't afford to support people in chaotic times. But I often wonder why these same voices do not pipe up when universal credit costs spiral out of control, when billions are given to outsourcing companies that deliver appalling services, or major infrastructure projects, like the HS2, see costs rocket. And I also know many on my own side of the political spectrum are also unconvinced, not because they don't want to support people, but because they are worried about the finite resources in a country that has already seen the Tories cut so much of what we all value. So, what I would say to them is: look at the list of problems I've discussed today—what pressure will the consequences of these changes place on public services? 

Now, Llywydd, I am looking forward to hearing Members' contributions today, so I will leave you with this: if a market economy is to thrive, it needs all its citizens to be able to participate in it. It needs them to be able to absorb the coming shocks and be home owners, consumers, creators and entrepreneurs. If we are to give them the space to take responsibility and ensure that they can be this, then we are going to need a much better springboard—a much kinder springboard—and that springboard is a universal basic income. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I have eight speakers who hope to be called, or eight Members who hope to speak, so five minutes at an absolute maximum, please, and I'd really appreciate it if some Members could be more succinct than that. Mark Isherwood.

Diolch. According to Welsh Government statistics, 721,000 or 23 per cent of all individuals—children, working-age adults and pensioners—are living in relative income poverty in Wales, higher than any other UK nation. According to the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Wales faces the highest relative poverty rate in the UK, and 25 per cent of jobs in Wales pay below minimum wage.

Universal basic income, or UBI, has gained significant recent interest. However, as the Bevan Foundation state:

'As with many schemes that affect people's income, the design and value of the proposals really matter.'

They found that although a UBI would help to reach people currently outside the benefits system and could reduce stigma, people have significant differences in needs. These, they said, are unlikely to be met by even a high rate of UBI, and they said:

'Most studies show UBI has only limited effects overall on people's engagement with the labour market.... In particular, women with children and older people have been found to slightly reduce their participation in employment with UBI.'

They also ask whether a high rate of UBI would be so expensive that it is difficult to invest in other essential services, such as the construction of new social housing and the provision of more low-cost public transport.

The Centre for Social Justice's report, 'Universal Basic Income: An Effective Policy for Poverty Reduction?', also argued that UBI is unaffordable, putting at risk the provision of important services in healthcare and education, adding that it:

'Doesn't meet the needs of low-income households facing complex problems such as drug addiction, dangerous debt, and family breakdown; provides a major disincentive to find work...and is no more generous to the most disadvantaged households than the provisions under universal credit.'

As the UK Secretary of State for business, Alok Sharma, said:

'What's very important in the way that we provide support, particularly more widely in the welfare system, is that we target it at people, and universal basic income is an issue that's being tested in other countries and hasn't been taken forward.'

Last year, the Finnish Government did not proceed with UBI after a two-year trial, concluding that it failed to help unemployed people to rejoin the workforce. Although a form of UBI is in place in Alaska, the level of payment is not sufficient to replace people's income and therefore acts only as a supplement. Although Spain has recently introduced a minimum income scheme, it appears to have more in common with the UK's social security system than the version of UBI being debated.

Reducing the amount of people living in poverty in Wales cannot be solved by one action. The Bevan Foundation calls for the development of an anti-poverty strategy that clearly sets the steps that the Welsh Government intends to take to reduce the number of people living in poverty in Wales. As Oxfam Cymru states, it's not the case that anti-poverty strategies don't work; it's about how those strategies are targeted. 

The Bevan Foundation has recently called for the Welsh Government to encourage local authorities to establish a single point of access for school meals, the pupil development grant and the council tax reduction scheme, stating that this would make it easier for families in poverty to access them. Where possible, they say, this support should be provided on a passported basis. As National Energy Action Cymru states, the Welsh Government should designate fuel poverty as an infrastructure priority.

Prevention is vital if people and organisations in Wales are going to address the major challenges we face, taking practical action to stop problems arising in the first place. Sticking plasters are just not enough; we need to find the underlying causes and finally do something to address them. If people keep falling into a river, would it not be better to build a fence upstream to stop them falling in, rather than endlessly rescuing them before they drown? As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted, universal basic income

'is not affordable, unpalatable to most of the public because of its "money for nothing" tag and perhaps most importantly—it increases poverty unless modified beyond recognition.'

That was a direct quote from them. Tackling poverty more widely will only succeed with citizen involvement at its core. We now need words to turn into real action, doing things with people rather than to them. At last, we need to fully embrace co-production, moving beyond rhetoric and consultation to doing things differently in practice, with service professionals, service users and their communities working side by side to provide solutions. Diolch yn fawr. 

I'm pleased to support the motion and grateful to Jack Sargeant for tabling it and giving us the opportunity to support and for his powerful opening speech. And of course, as Jack said, Mark Isherwood's contribution to the debate has just demonstrated that there will always be people who will look to find new and innovative ideas impossible and undeliverable. I would submit we have to be more ambitious than that. 

I've said in this Chamber before, and I'll keep saying it while it continues to be the case, it is a national disgrace that we live in a country where a third of our children are poor. The current benefits system is complex, it's punitive and it keeps families in poverty. It's also costly to administer and profoundly unfair. As the motion highlights, work, as things stand, is no longer a route out of poverty. Too many families in Wales with both parents working in zero-hours contract, gig economy jobs are still poor. 

There can be no doubt that COVID-19 will hit our economy hard, but even pre-COVID our economy was changing. The challenges of, among other things, automation and artificial intelligence are likely to, over time, transform the world of work. There may not just be enough of what we traditionally regard as work to go around. There are many actions that we can and should take to address these challenges, and I wouldn't disagree with everything that Mark Isherwood said, but exploring a universal basic income has to be one of them. 

The motion clearly outlines many of the benefits, and I would add to that list the capacity of a universal basic income to allow people to spend more time with their families, and particularly with children. I know too many families in the region I represent where both parents are working long hours in low-paid work. A universal basic income could allow them to reduce their hours, hugely improving their quality of life and the quality of life of their children. 

I am comfortable in supporting the motion as it stands, but there is a 'but'—it will be very difficult to establish even a limited universal basic income trial in Wales without the devolution of the benefits system. We could perhaps trial with families on low incomes that are above the benefits threshold, and goodness knows there are too many of those in our nation, but there would certainly be no point at all in providing individuals and families with a universal basic income from Welsh funds only to have them lose their benefits from the UK Government. 

And while I would certainly not oppose lobbying a UK Government to fund a Wales-wide universal basic income, I have to admit that, with the current UK Government in power, I am not holding my breath. Better, surely, to follow the careful, considered advice of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee and to seek the devolution of the administration of benefits to Wales. Then, we could really trial universal basic income. And if it works, it could transform people's lives. Diolch yn fawr. 

Every now and then, an idea comes along, an imaginative and innovative idea, and I think we have a duty, particularly in this Senedd, to embrace those ideas and the opportunities that they can present to us. The idea of a basic income has been around a long time. Economists, philosophers and politicians have long debated how to abolish poverty. The 1945 Labour Government began this journey in earnest by establishing the welfare state, and it worked for many decades. It took the unemployed, it took those unable to work and those in low-paid work out of poverty. And it worked reasonably well in a society where there was near full employment, strong trade unionism and a public commitment to the common good.

Now, during the 1980s and subsequent decades, those three prerequisites, which underpin the welfare state, have been increasingly whittled away and undermined, which culminated in the disgraceful Tory Welfare Reform Act 2012. The attempt to create a new universal credit started off on the right track, with cross-party support, but alongside the bedroom tax, became discredited by a Tory Government fix with austerity. Since the days of Margaret Thatcher, political attitudes towards those on benefits have also become increasingly hostile. Consistent headlines about 'benefit cheats', 'welfare scroungers' and the latest Tory mantra, 'the deserving poor', have, I think, increasingly masked the poverty and inequality that has increasingly destabilised our society.

So, now is the time for new thinking and new ideas. The emergence of the idea of a universal basic income is timely and welcome. The underlying principle for a UBI is that all adults should be paid an amount of money sufficient to have a reasonable basic standard of living. Now, there is the nub. What is reasonable? What is basic? What is sufficient? Added to that are many other challenges. We have already had some universal benefits, such as free prescriptions and child benefits, until recent changes, which go to everyone and are paid for by everyone. Universal basic income would be the same. It is in some ways no different to the concept of a basic tax-free allowance, except that it goes further and becomes a non-means-tested payment to every adult. Now, there can, of course, be special top-ups for special needs and that is one of the concepts. But there are many variations. So, making it work, winning support is the real challenge. Will society accept it? Will those who work be prepared to accept this concept? How will it impact on wages and those in work? What obligations will it place on society to ensure that socially useful and proper work is available and that people take up that work? What are the responsibilities of the recipients? How do you enforce those responsibilities? And there are many other questions. 

Now, if the idea of a UBI has the potential to eliminate poverty, we must consider it and discuss it and debate it and then come to a conclusion. Jack Sargeant has got the ball rolling with this individual Member's debate. It is an exciting debate. Let's continue this debate with an open mind, because we have much to gain and little to lose. Thank you, acting Llywydd.

Having a universal basic income will, as with most innovative ideas, be likely to create both positive and negative outcomes. In the first instance, if we examine the benefits of such a payment, people would have the freedom to return to education, giving them a greater chance of better work opportunities. More would be able to stay at home to care for a relative. This has the potential to give considerable savings to the huge cost of social care. It could remove many thousands from the poverty trap engendered by more traditional forms of welfare programmes. People could access a simple, straightforward payment that could minimise bureaucracy. Again, a cost saving that would help pay for any additional funding costs associated with the basic income policy, because we all know that administering the current welfare system is hugely expensive and complicated. Young couples would have more freedom to start families and they would have a guaranteed income, possibly alleviating the low birth rates in some sectors of the UK population. A guaranteed income could help stabilise the economy during recession periods, thus mitigating the effect of economic recessions. However, as with everything, the right balance has to be struck.

If the universal basic payment is set too high, it may disincentivise people to enter the jobs market. Set too low, it will continue to keep a portion of the population in relative poverty. Again, if set too high, the demand for goods and services could trigger inflation, which, in the long run, might negate the increased standard of living for most basic income recipients. A reduced programme with smaller payments, on the other hand, won't make a real difference to poverty stricken families.

If we are to get general acceptance of the universal basic income, we have to prove the potential benefits to the many people out there who are totally opposed to what they feel are free handouts of any sort. Across the world, countries are either looking to experiment with UBI or are already doing so. These include some American states, Finland, Kenya, Canada and Taiwan. Monitoring the progress could give the Senedd the opportunity to benchmark the effect of a universal basic payment.

There are many academics, economists and even industrialists who now believe that if we are to create a fairer, more equal society, some form of universal basic income is not only desirable but inevitable. Automation has fundamentally changed the structure of the world's economy, with artificial intelligence taking us into another industrial revolution in the way we produce and market goods and services. The resultant effect on the need for both manual and office-based human intervention will drastically reduce the jobs market. I think we would all agree that this industrial revolution must not duplicate those of the past, with the terrible manifestation of the haves and have-nots. We must all accept that if we are to create a fair, equal society, a universal basic income is not only desirable but essential. However, we should be under no illusions: its instigation must be done with great care and caution.

An excellent introduction by Jack, and a really interesting debate by people from all parties, and that's how it should be. It seems to me that the COVID pandemic, and the collective action that has been required to beat it, is what has propelled radical responses into the spotlight. Who would have thought that a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of the most right-wing libertarian Governments the UK has had in living memory, would agree to pay 80 per cent of all this country's wages in order to save people's jobs?

I've long supported the principle of a universal basic income. I was an early adopter of Wages for Housework, long before many Members, including Jack, were born. We need to remember that the original family allowance, which then became child benefit, was intended to recognise the important work of bringing up the next generation. Sadly, it's been allowed to wither on the vine and is a completely insufficient contribution by society to the cost of bringing up our children. But until recently, I didn't feel that now was the time to be pushing for a UBI, because I thought, in the middle of a pandemic, there were just far too many other immediate problems that Governments needed to deal with. And in addition to that, Welsh Government neither has the resources nor, indeed, the powers to make it happen. But I think the depth of the crisis we are now facing, that are coming together, make this something that we really, now, urgently need to look at, because we are not just facing a pandemic, we are also facing the real possibility of the UK severing its ties with our European neighbours after 40 years without achieving a workable trade deal. And in addition to that, we have the gathering climate crisis, which, if we do nothing about it, will simply get much, much worse very, very quickly.

So, I am convinced that this is what we now need: a universal basic income to protect our country from the level of economic and social disintegration that is far greater and more devastating than anything we saw in 1973, 1982, 1989 and 2008. Above all, we have to avoid the violent political upheavals that are often triggered by the failure to manage economic shockwaves. Goodness knows what would have happened in 2008 if Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling hadn't managed to prevent the complete collapse of all our banks.

So, before COVID, Wales was already suffering from very high levels of insecurity, as others have already said. We know that one in eight people have insecure employment, and Wales has one of the highest levels of zero-hours contracts, which is probably the most insecure way in which anybody is forced to try and juggle home and work responsibilities. But underpinning that disgraceful statistic is the fact that one third of children in this country live in households that struggle to put sufficient food on the table without skimping on other essentials like heating and school trips, and this in the sixth richest economy in the world.

We also have this punitive and wasteful benefits system, designed to punish people for being unable to find a job, even if none exists. As Mick has already pointed out, universal benefit could have been, if properly funded and implemented differently, the reliable safety net that any civilised society needs when people get into difficulties, but it wasn't, and it isn't. It's just increased the misery and impoverishment of the most vulnerable. You can read on social media some of the appalling things that happen to people as soon as they have any change in their universal benefit. Simply forcing people to wait five weeks for any money on universal benefit is just a calling card for loan sharks and spiralling debt. Universal benefit is costing—

You will need to make this your concluding—. You'll conclude with this, please.

So, basically, I just want to say that we really do need to look to the future of how we manage all these changes, and the idea that there's not going to be enough work to go round is completely false, in my view. But we do need that underpinning to enable people to make the transition in this very, very radical set of changes that we are going to be suffering.

Clearly, as we've heard in the debate, the driving force for the discussion around universal basic income is the massive wave of technological change that is unfolding in front of our very eyes. There is an economic debate as to the extent to which automation, AI and related technologies are going to create mass technological unemployment permanently. There are serious economists that believe that what we're talking about now is something fundamentally different to earlier stages of mechanisation, that, actually, the extent of automation is going to reach into areas of the service economy. We're not just talking about automation, robots on the manufacturing factory floor; we're talking about white-collar professional services, legal services, being automated effectively, and, therefore, us being left with a totally different economic system whereby it's only a minority that are left in jobs at all. Others would contend that, eventually, because human beings have an infinite array of wants, new jobs will be created that we can't even imagine now. But even those economists accept that we are going to go through, over the next 10, 15, 20 years, a massive wave of rapid structural change and that will almost inevitably create levels of economic insecurity for many, many people. So, whichever view you take, there is a strong argument for creating an universal basic income as a means by which we manage that change to a very, very different economic future.

And there's another related argument. Many people will have followed the debate around Thomas Piketty's work showing that the arrow, certainly under capitalism, is over the long run towards inequality. One of the reasons for that, of course, is because ownership of capital is in relatively few hands and if you couple that then with automation, you can see where we're ending up again. Unless we create a system for the redistribution of income that is much more effective than the one that we have at the moment, then the rising inequality that has been a feature of the developed west over the last however many decades—and, indeed, Piketty argues, over centuries—we're going to see that rise exponentially over the coming years.

One of the advantages of UBI, of course, is that, because it gives people options, because it gives workers options, it means that they can refuse what the late David Graeber called—and this is in quotes, Deputy Presiding Officer—'bullshit jobs', and they can refuse low-income jobs. So, it creates what economists call a new reservation wage, because people don't have to accept wages and jobs at any level, and it actually changes the economic centre of gravity in terms of economic power.

UBI, I think, would unleash a wave of creativity, because it would—remember the enterprise allowance scheme? It was one of the few things the Thatcher Government did that I'd actually support. What it meant is that if you were in a band, et cetera, or a struggling artist, then you had a base level of income, if you used that scheme, at least, which could allow you to do other more interesting things. So actually, in an entrepreneurial sense, this is an argument that would appeal to some on the right of the political spectrum—that actually creating a UBI allows people to take some risks with their life because they have the basic economic security upon which they can do so.

It also allows people, finally, to make other choices in terms of paid work versus spending time with their family, as Helen Mary said, but also paid work versus unpaid work, voluntary work, et cetera, and allowing society to gain from those benefits. I'm all in favour of exploring a trial. I think redundancies—unfortunately, we've seen those recently in Wales—that could be one area. Youth basic income is something that other countries have done, but Helen Mary's central point is absolutely true—if we're going to do this as a nation, then we have to devolve welfare powers. So, let's get cross-party support for that as well.

Thank you. Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I also thank Jack Sargeant for tabling this really important motion, which I'm very happy to support? I'd like to start by setting some context for my contribution, hopefully without repeating what others have said, and then to explain why I believe this is an idea whose time is coming, and why it would benefit communities like those I represent in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

So, first some context. In April 2018 I published a discussion piece for the Welsh Fabians about Wales being what I described as a well-being state, and in that piece I explored the suggestion that our traditional welfare state safety net could usefully evolve into a more holistic well-being state. The idea had emerged from a piece originally authorised by our now Counsel General, Jeremy Miles, who said, and I quote,

'Bevan was an architect of the welfare state. Tomorrow's task will be a Wellbeing State.'

But I needed to ask myself what exactly a Welsh well-being state would look like, and for me, at the core of such an approach must be to incorporate well-being in all our policies, much like we equality-proof policies and should, in my view, also poverty-proof policies. So, we should well-being-proof policies. And then I set out a range of ideas that might help build a well-being state, and that included a minimum income guarantee for a Welsh citizen equivalent to a real living wage, providing an uplift in circumstances for many within an associated cost-efficiency saving, and a top-up of welfare state payments with personal well-being payments, to be paid in short periods to offset stress and debilitating conditions such as mental health crises. It follows, therefore, that underpinning a well-being state should be a move from being a welfare recipient to being a well-being participant. This would acknowledge an obligation to be an active citizen in the community in which we share a common responsibility to enhance well-being.

So, what's the practical benefit of this idea for communities like Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney? Well, it could challenge and change some of the dreadful circumstances that have bedevilled some of our most deprived communities and that have been magnified during this current COVID crisis. As others have already mentioned, the likes of uncertain employment with zero-hours contracts, exploitative conditions and working practices and low wages and benefit dependency are scourges on too many of my constituents, and they deserve better. A universal basic income is a solution, and it's a sensible solution now, given what has happened as a result of this dreadful pandemic.

In crises, opportunities arise, and I believe that what was set out in 2018 and what is being developed in this current debate is a sensible and rational response to our current circumstances. I hope that our Welsh Government will be bold and responsive, and take on board the calls in this motion, because it's no longer good enough to keep doing what we do and expecting things to change. My constituents have waited too long for that, and we have to look at a different approach. Universal basic income could be a building block of post-COVID recovery, and it's something we should embrace. Thank you. 

And the final speaker before the Minister is Mandy Jones. 

I'd like to start by thanking Jack Sargeant for tabling this debate and the many Members of the Senedd who support the motion. I've heard some stuff about UBI, but I must admit that my brain usually switches off as soon as it's mentioned. It's always been locked away in the part of my head that says, 'Something for nothing? I don't think so.' So, in the interests of opening my own mind, I volunteered to participate in this debate and I've done some reading and some research.

I've worked all of my life, from my early teens. I've earned all of my own money, and I've raised four children largely with little help, financial or emotional, from both of their fathers. I cared for my elderly father when he was in his last years, too. I've done all sorts of jobs—menial jobs I was damn grateful for. I've done jobs for £1 an hour, and I was glad to have those. The only time I claimed any sort of benefit was when my spine collapsed. I needed that security blanket, and I was grateful for it. That said, if ever I fall on hard times again, if ever one of my sons is made redundant, if my daughter returns to Wales and can't find a job in our post-COVID world, I want a support network in place for them, for everyone, that is compassionate and realistic, and able to respond to the needs of the individual.

I do think the UK benefits system is a mess, administered by an entrenched tick-box civil service that just can't get it right. However, the fact that the bulk of the benefit is paid to people in work is beyond me. Why does the taxpayer effectively subsidise shareholders of large corporates that won't pay a decent wage to people for decent work? While this continues, pay growth will continue to stagnate, and I do think it's remained pretty flat since the financial crash. And yes, people will need the support of top-up benefits and food banks while this remains the case. It's a total disgrace.

I've read with interest reports of the trial of UBI in Finland in 2018-19, but the thing that concerns me is that the net result was that the unemployed became less stressed and a little happier. They did not during this period seek work or training opportunities. That would be a big problem. And surely, the aim is not for those who can work—and I accept that some people cannot do so, but for the others—to languish at home. It has to be to encourage them to find work or to upskill. And let's not forget that everyone in work gets a tax-free £12,500 and a pass on national insurance under £9,500. 

As part of my research, I've delved into the world of universal credit, built on the foundation of one payment for all benefits due. I personally have no difficulty with the concept of universal credit, but I do take issue with the way it's been administered, causing deeper poverty and untold stress for claimants. Is universal credit not the same sort of thing as UBI? This is a genuine question for those who know more about this than I do. We represent a nation of workers, all of whom should take great pride in the contribution they make to society, whatever they do, and they, more than anything, I think, want to see fair play. What would they think of a proposal for UBI? I'm not sure it's a vote winner although that is certainly no bar to discussing it in great length, and I'm not sure ordinary people are ready for it. Although I do understand that some of the sentiments behind the motion are perfectly laudable, I do find some of these sweeping statements in it questionable. 

My group will not be supporting this motion as it stands. We believe that the sense of purpose, self-worth and discipline of a job have far more merit than the Government handing out sums of money to those who don't necessarily need them. As I mentioned earlier, there are real structural issues with the welfare system in this country, not least the propping up of big businesses who don't want to pay decent salaries. While I now know more about UBI, and for that I thank you for this debate, I don't believe that UBI is the solution to this problem at this time. Thank you very much.  

I call the Minister for finance, Rebecca Evans. 

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.

Thank you. I call Jack Sargeant to reply to the debate.  

Diolch yn fawr, acting Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank the Minister for her contribution on behalf of the Welsh Government and also all Members who've contributed today from all sides of the debate, and those who have supported this motion before us today. If I may, I'd like to conclude by addressing some of the biggest challenges that we currently face and how a UBI could alleviate these.

Firstly, the issue of poor mental health. The charity Mind has reported that more than half of adults and two thirds of young people have said their mental health has worsened during lockdown. Now, as someone who has struggled openly with their mental health, this is deeply upsetting, but, unfortunately, it is not surprising. Now, I understand that a universal basic income cannot resolve the current pandemic, but it would at least guarantee everyone a solid foundation of financial stability from which to cope with the crisis, ensure a roof over their heads and provide food on the table.

A further example of issues we face as a society is period poverty, and whilst I welcome the Welsh Government's initiatives to tackle this, they cannot solve the root of the problem. Widespread poverty means that one in seven girls struggle to afford period products—a basic human necessity. Now, given that half of girls feel embarrassed by their period, this is just one example of how our lack of access to very basic needs causes even the youngest members of our society undue stress and humiliation. A UBI would ensure access to the very basics for everyone.

Now, to those who argue that a UBI is not the answer to the problems, and particularly those who have supported a UK Conservative Government over the past 10 years where poverty has increased, I would say this: the current system is broken. Helen Mary Jones was absolutely right when she said the current system isn't working. We have to be bold and now is the time for change.

This system, this current system, has unkindness built into it. Universal credit is not only difficult to navigate and costly, it is punitive, enforcing sanctions for arbitrary reasons and causing financial instability for millions across the UK. In fact, the current system, and particularly universal credit, fails to protect the vulnerable full stop. For instance, because payments are made to households and not individuals, those trapped in abusive relationships can easily be subjected to financial control, afraid they may become homeless or unable to support themselves if they were to leave an abusive partner. A universal basic income would restore these women's financial agency, providing the safety net that empowers them to leave dangerous and volatile situations.

Llywydd, we have an opportunity now to make a change that not only deals with the most difficult challenges our society faces today but protects our future generations from the inevitable economic shifts coming our way. I hope the Welsh Government will listen carefully to the points made today from all sides of the Chamber, and backed by calls for a UBI trial that could help transform the lives of our most vulnerable citizens here in Wales, because David Rowlands is absolutely right, a universal basic income is desirable and essential but needs to be carefully introduced. And it's important—and I will end now, Llywydd—as Mick Antoniw very carefully said in his powerful contribution, that we continue to explore this debate in this Senedd because it's right that we're talking about it in this Welsh Parliament. So, I'm proud to bring this here today. So, diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Thank you all very much, Members who have supported this motion already, and I would urge others, after following this debate, to vote for this motion today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

There will now be a 10-minute interruption whilst we allow for a change-over. Thank you.

Plenary was suspended at 17:22.

The Senedd reconvened at 17:33, with the Llywydd in the Chair.