English: Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and thank you for the chance to contribute in this, the latest round in this Government's determination, and the determination of other Members of this Assembly, to resist the unwarranted intrusion of the UK Government into devolved responsibilities and to prevent their determination to foist their views of industrial relations onto this Assembly and onto the social partnership model, which has been so carefully crafted here in the devolution era. The evidence from social partners on this group of amendments is absolutely clear: that putting limitation on check-off is unnecessary, that the cost to the public purse is negligible and that it unjustifiably singles out trade union membership subscriptions from other forms of payroll deductions. As you've heard from Dawn Bowden and others, apparently there is no difficulty for the Conservative Party in using this form of paying for sport club membership, from making donations to charity, for taking advantage of cycle-to-work schemes or for making subscriptions to a credit union. Uniquely, apparently, trade union membership is to be singled out as not to be available for this form of activity. Llywydd, I first joined a trade union when I was 17 years old, so it's going to be nearly 50 years before too long. In that time, I have paid trade union subscriptions in cash; I have written a cheque; I have taken advantage of payroll deductions, and, these days, I pay by direct debit. There is no inhibition whatsoever on trade union members in taking other forms of making their subscriptions. What this would do would be to place limits on their ability to use payroll deduction and for no good reason at all. Employers are not compelled to make payroll deduction available, neither are they compelled to provide it at no cost, and neither are trade unionists compelled to pay their subscriptions by this method. The amendment sets out to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist. This afternoon, Llywydd, I will rely regularly on the report that this Assembly's Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee provided at the end of Stage 1 - a report supported by seven of the eight members of that committee and which was the result of very careful evidence-taking that the committee brought together to scrutinise the Government's proposal. This is what the committee said in relation to the deduction of trade union subscriptions: 'we believe that the provisions in the 2016 Act' - the UK Act - 'which seek to restrict check-off services are unnecessary and unwarranted. They also single out trade union subscriptions from other payments made by employers on behalf of employees. We see no valid reason to apply the provisions to devolved Welsh authorities in Wales. By destabilising the social partnership, the provisions may have an adverse impact on the effective delivery of public services in Wales.' Members should reject this proposal.
Welsh: Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, a diolch am y cyfle i gyfrannu yn hwn, y cylch diweddaraf ym mhenderfyniad y Llywodraeth hon, a phenderfyniad Aelodau eraill y Cynulliad hwn, i wrthsefyll ymyrraeth ddieisiau Llywodraeth y DU â chyfrifoldebau datganoledig ac i atal eu penderfyniad i orfodi eu barn nhw am gysylltiadau diwydiannol ar y Cynulliad hwn ac ar y model partneriaeth gymdeithasol, sydd wedi cael ei saernïo mor ofalus yma yn y cyfnod datganoli. Mae'r dystiolaeth gan bartneriaid cymdeithasol ar y grŵp hwn o welliannau'n gwbl glir: bod cyfyngu ar ddidynnu taliadau tanysgrifio i undebau drwy'r gyflogres yn ddiangen, bod y gost i bwrs y wlad yn ddibwys a'i fod yn gwahaniaethu heb gyfiawnhad rhwng tanysgrifiadau aelodaeth o undeb llafur a mathau eraill o ddidyniadau cyflogres. Fel yr ydych wedi'i glywed gan Dawn Bowden ac eraill, mae'n debyg nad oes dim anhawster i'r Blaid Geidwadol ddefnyddio'r math hwn o dalu ar gyfer aelodaeth o glwb chwaraeon, gwneud rhoddion i elusen, manteisio ar gynlluniau beicio i'r gwaith nac ar gyfer gwneud tanysgrifiadau i undeb credyd. Yn unigryw, mae'n debyg, dylid neilltuo aelodaeth o undeb llafur fel rhywbeth na fydd ar gael ar gyfer y math hwn o weithgaredd. Llywydd, ymunais ag undeb llafur am y tro cyntaf pan oeddwn yn 17 mlwydd oed, felly bydd bron yn 50 mlynedd cyn bo hir. Yn y cyfnod hwnnw, rwyf wedi talu tanysgrifiadau undeb llafur mewn arian parod; rwyf wedi ysgrifennu siec; rwyf wedi manteisio ar ddidyniadau cyflogres, ac, y dyddiau hyn, rwy'n talu drwy ddebyd uniongyrchol. Nid oes dim byd o gwbl yn atal aelodau undebau llafur rhag gwneud eu tanysgrifiadau mewn ffyrdd eraill. Beth fyddai hyn yn ei wneud fyddai gosod cyfyngiadau ar eu gallu i ddefnyddio didyniadau cyflogres, a heb reswm da o gwbl. Nid yw cyflogwyr yn cael eu gorfodi i gynnig didyniadau cyflogres, na'u gorfodi i'w ddarparu heb gost, ac nid yw undebwyr llafur yn cael eu gorfodi i dalu eu tanysgrifiadau drwy'r dull hwn. Mae'r gwelliant yn ceisio datrys problem nad yw'n bodoli. Y prynhawn yma, Llywydd, byddaf yn dibynnu'n rheolaidd ar yr adroddiad a ddarparodd Pwyllgor Cydraddoldeb, Llywodraeth Leol a Chymunedau y Cynulliad hwn ar ddiwedd Cyfnod 1 - adroddiad a gefnogir gan saith o'r wyth aelod o'r pwyllgor hwnnw ac a luniwyd ar ôl proses ofalus iawn o gasglu tystiolaeth gan y pwyllgor i graffu ar gynnig y Llywodraeth. Dyma beth ddywedodd y pwyllgor ynglŷn â didynnu tanysgrifiadau undeb llafur: 'rydym yn credu bod darpariaethau Deddf 2016' - Deddf y DU - 'sy'n ceisio cyfyngu ar wasanaethau didynnu taliadau tanysgrifio i undebau drwy'r gyflogres yn ddiangen ac yn ddireswm. Maent hefyd yn gwahaniaethu rhwng tanysgrifiadau undeb llafur a thaliadau eraill a wneir gan gyflogwyr ar ran gweithwyr. Ni welwn ddim rheswm dilys i gymhwyso'r darpariaethau i awdurdodau datganoledig Cymru yng Nghymru. Drwy ansefydlogi'r bartneriaeth gymdeithasol, gallai'r darpariaethau gael effaith andwyol ar ddarparu gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yn effeithiol yng Nghymru.' Dylai Aelodau wrthod y cynnig hwn.