English: Diolch, Llywydd. So, the Conservative party here tells us that they are all in favour of facility time - they're just simple seekers after truth; it's simply a matter of wanting to record how much facility time is being taken and the costs of it. But what they fail to tell you completely, Llywydd, is that they are not interested at all in reporting to the public what the benefits of facility time are. All they want is a one-sided account in which everything is articulated as a cost, and all the things that those employers who turned up to the committee set out as the advantages for employers from facility time, all of that goes unreported altogether. This is not just a simple wish to put information into the public domain. It is a deliberate attempt to provide a biased, one-sided account of what is a bargain, a bargain in which facility time is provided in order that employers are able to make sure that their businesses run effectively, and that trade unions are able to carry out their legitimate work. The committee of the Assembly said: 'we are in no doubt that facility time is a prudent investment in public services and we believe it should be viewed as such.' And if you make a prudent investment then not only will you want to account for the costs of that investment, but you will want to account for the return on that investment as well. This amendment entirely ignores that. UK Ministers, when they were putting their Trade Union Bill through, were at least candid enough to say that the reason for wanting to report on facility time was so that it could be borne down on in the future, and that it could be reduced. That's what all this is about. It's that attack on the work that trade unions do, disguised as simply a seeking for information. The amendment doesn't deserve to be supported, and I hope Members here will vote against it this afternoon.
Welsh: Diolch, Llywydd. Felly, mae'r blaid Geidwadol yma'n dweud wrthym eu bod i gyd o blaid amser cyfleuster - dim ond chwilio am y gwir y maent; mae'n fater syml o fod eisiau cofnodi faint o amser cyfleuster sy'n cael ei gymryd a'i gostau. Ond yr hyn y maent yn methu â'i ddweud yn llawn wrthych, Llywydd, yw nad oes ganddynt ddiddordeb o gwbl mewn dweud wrth y cyhoedd beth yw manteision amser cyfleuster. Yr oll yr hoffent ei gael yw adroddiad unochrog sy'n mynegi popeth fel cost, gan hepgor yn llwyr yr holl bethau a nododd y cyflogwyr hynny a fu yn y pwyllgor fel manteision amser cyfleuster i gyflogwyr. Nid dim ond dymuniad syml i roi gwybodaeth i'r cyhoedd yw hyn. Mae'n ymgais fwriadol i ddarparu cyfrif rhagfarnllyd, unochrog o'r hyn sy'n fargen, bargen lle darperir amser cyfleuster fel y gall cyflogwyr wneud yn siŵr bod eu busnesau'n cael eu cynnal yn effeithiol, a bod undebau llafur yn gallu yn cyflawni eu gwaith cyfreithlon. Dywedodd pwyllgor y Cynulliad: 'nid ydym mewn unrhyw amheuaeth bod amser cyfleuster yn fuddsoddiad doeth mewn gwasanaethau cyhoeddus ac rydym yn credu y dylid ei ystyried fel y cyfryw.' Ac os ydych chi'n gwneud buddsoddiad doeth, nid yn unig y byddwch am roi cyfrif am gostau'r buddsoddiad hwnnw, ond byddwch hefyd am roi cyfrif am yr adenillion ar y buddsoddiad. Mae'r gwelliant hwn yn anwybyddu hynny'n llwyr. Roedd Gweinidogion y DU, wrth basio eu Bil Undebau Llafur nhw, o leiaf yn ddigon gonest i ddweud mai'r rheswm dros fod eisiau adrodd ar amser cyfleuster oedd fel y gellid canolbwyntio arno yn y dyfodol, ac y gellid ei leihau. Dyna beth yw perwyl hyn i gyd. Yr ymosodiad hwnnw ar waith undebau llafur, o dan gochl cais syml am wybodaeth. Nid yw'r gwelliant yn haeddu cael ei gefnogi, ac rwy'n gobeithio y bydd Aelodau yma'n pleidleisio yn ei erbyn y prynhawn yma.