It's probably worth saying first and foremost that I'm a lawyer by trade and a campaigner as well, so I'm not an economist or a statistician, but I have a keen interest in the policy, quite clearly. My view would be for it to be led by, for example, the Welsh index of multiple deprivation, to pick one of the lowest super-output areas there—so, a ward, for example—and for you to run it in that particular area to see whether or not it has an impact on poverty, on entrepreneurship, on school performance and that type of thing. For example, I think Rhyl is in the top two in the Welsh index of multiple deprivation, so somewhere like that could be looked at. Malcolm Torry in a report recently about the Welsh pilot suggested that Wrexham would be an ideal site. I think that, by having that geographical location, you then see the community impacts of that, and you have the feedback loops because people are spending money in the local economy, which creates jobs and so on and so forth. You lose all of that by having a single cohort, because this will be spread across Wales, of course.
In terms of numbers, I'm not precious about numbers. I think that if you have, for example, around 1,000 people in a particular area, then that would be enough, but I think it's also important that you have a controlled group as well. So, you have 1,000 people in, let’s say, for example, somewhere in Rhyl, in a ward in Rhyl, and you have another 1,000 people in a different ward or different borough that is similar to Rhyl, in order to understand the differences between the people who are receiving it and the people who are not receiving it. That's how I would do it.
In terms of how much you would pay them, I know the minimum income standard recommended by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is around £213. If you can do it lower than that but then removing some of the subsistence benefits like universal credit, that would be my preference because I think, if you maintain a significant amount of benefits where you have to go to the job centre, for example, to receive them, you lose the emancipatory effects of a basic income. People having the autonomy to find meaningful work, rather than going to the job centre and finding a job just to tick a box, I think that you lose a lot of what the policy is all about there. So, that would be my preference to do it. There are other ways in which you could do it where you maintain, for example, all benefits, but you remove the personal tax allowance, for example, and pay people £60. That would significantly reduce poverty, but, of course, you've still got the problem then of people jumping through hoops in order to get the benefits that they're already on, like universal credit. So, my preference would be to remove some of those means-tested benefits, and give a basic income, so you haven't got to jump through hoops then.