English: We say it quite clearly. We've set out amendments to a whole series of Bills. I know that the honourable Member and I myself were elected last year, but Plaid Cymru put in a whole series of amendments on six separate occasions to two different Bills. They were set out in amendments to those Bills, and you voted against. It's not as if we've just done this to play politics, right? We actually tried to legislate in this place and your Government opposed it. [Interruption.] Well, I'll tell you the pathetic arguments that you gave against it. Actually, on one of those occasions on the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care Bill, your Minister in your Government said this: 'But, let's be clear about the proposition that is in front of the National Assembly. This amendment seeks an outright ban - an outright ban - on the use of zero-hours contracts I don't think that that is a position that we ought to support.' That's what you were saying then. You say a different thing now in your British Labour Party manifesto. Yes, you introduced it in January 2016 after research that showed that there are quite clear disadvantages in terms of workers' rights. Yes, you agreed to look at limiting the use of zero-hours contracts, and you consulted up on that, and presumably, that's what the Cabinet Secretary was referring to earlier - 'We're expecting an announcement about limiting the use'. Well, limiting the use of something that is quite clearly wrong in every sense, both in terms of the workers, but also, as we've heard, in terms of service users as well - you don't limit the use, you ban it, you get rid of it, you root it out. That's what people expect from a party that purports to be socialist, so why isn't the Cabinet Secretary able to get up at that dispatch box in a few minutes and say that that is what you're going to do? And this argument, as well, that we've heard: 'You could have imperilled the Bill'. Well, we have a system for dealing with that - it's section 111 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, which allows a Member in this place, if there is a legal challenge at the Supreme Court, to remove that section of the Bill to allow the Bill to proceed without the danger of the whole Bill being lost. It's a completely vacuous argument. And we were told as well the idea that, 'Oh, there's a lack of clarity whether we can actually do anything that is related to employment, and therefore, it might raise questions about the Bill'. That's the argument that you - . The argument that you're using with the trade union Bill is that, actually, public sector employment is a legitimate area for this place to legislate. And that's what we're talking about, certainly, in terms of what we have in this motion - at least banning the use of zero-hours contracts in local authorities in Wales. Why don't you do it and put your principles into practice?
Welsh: Rydym yn ei ddweud yn eithaf clir. Rydym wedi nodi gwelliannau i gyfres gyfan o Filiau. Gwn fod yr Aelod anrhydeddus a minnau wedi ein hethol y llynedd, ond cyflwynodd Plaid Cymru gyfres gyfan o welliannau ar chwe achlysur gwahanol i ddau Fil gwahanol. Cawsant eu nodi yn y gwelliannau i'r Biliau hynny, ac fe bleidleisioch chi yn erbyn. Nid yw fel pe baem wedi gwneud hyn er mwyn chwarae gwleidyddiaeth, iawn? Mewn gwirionedd, aethom ati i geisio deddfu yn y lle hwn ac fe'i gwrthwynebwyd gan eich Llywodraeth chi. [Torri ar draws.] Wel, fe ddywedaf wrthych beth oedd y dadleuon pathetig a roesoch yn ei erbyn. Mewn gwirionedd, ar un o'r achlysuron hynny ar y Bil Rheoleiddio ac Arolygu Gofal Cymdeithasol, dywedodd eich Gweinidog yn eich Llywodraeth hyn: Ond gadewch i ni fod yn glir ynghylch y cynnig sydd gerbron y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol. Mae'r gwelliant hwn yn galw am waharddiad llwyr - gwaharddiad llwyr - ar y defnydd o gontractau dim oriau Nid wyf yn credu bod hwnnw'n safbwynt y dylem ei gefnogi. Dyna beth oeddech yn ei ddweud bryd hynny. Rydych yn dweud rhywbeth gwahanol yn awr yn eich maniffesto Plaid Lafur Prydeinig. Do, fe'i cyflwynwyd gennych ym mis Ionawr 2016 ar ôl ymchwil a ddangosai fod yna anfanteision eithaf clir o ran hawliau gweithwyr. Do, fe gytunoch i ystyried cyfyngu ar y defnydd o gontractau dim oriau, ac ymgynghorwyd ar hynny, ac yn ôl pob tebyg, dyna roedd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet yn cyfeirio ato'n gynharach - 'Rydym yn disgwyl cyhoeddiad ar gyfyngu ar y defnydd'. Wel, mae cyfyngu ar y defnydd o rywbeth sy'n amlwg yn anghywir ym mhob ystyr, o ran y gweithwyr, ond hefyd, fel y clywsom, o ran defnyddwyr gwasanaethau yn ogystal - nid cyfyngu ar y defnydd a wnewch, rydych yn ei wahardd, rydych yn cael gwared arno, rydych yn ei ddileu. Dyna beth y mae pobl yn ei ddisgwyl gan blaid sy'n honni ei bod yn sosialaidd, felly pam na all Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet godi ar ei draed mewn ychydig funudau a dweud mai dyna rydych yn mynd i'w wneud? A'r ddadl hon a glywsom hefyd: 'Fe allech fod wedi peryglu'r Bil.' Wel, mae gennym system ar gyfer ymdrin â hynny - adran 111 o Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru 2006, sy'n caniatáu i Aelod yn y lle hwn, os ceir her gyfreithiol yn y Goruchaf Lys, i gael gwared ar yr adran honno o'r Bil i ganiatáu i'r Bil fynd rhagddo heb beryglu'r Bil cyfan. Mae'n ddadl hollol wag. A chlywsom hefyd y syniad, 'O, mae diffyg eglurder pa un a allwn wneud unrhyw beth mewn gwirionedd sy'n ymwneud â chyflogaeth, ac felly, gallai godi cwestiynau am y Bil.' Dyna'r ddadl rydych chi - . Y ddadl a ddefnyddiwch gyda'r Bil undeb llafur yw bod cyflogaeth sector cyhoeddus, mewn gwirionedd, yn faes dilys i'r lle hwn ddeddfu yn ei gylch. Ac am hynny y soniwn, yn sicr, o ran yr hyn sydd gennym yn y cynnig hwn - gwahardd y defnydd o gontractau dim oriau mewn awdurdodau lleol yng Nghymru fan lleiaf. Pam na wnewch chi hynny a rhoi eich egwyddorion ar waith yn ymarferol?