Prif Weinidog, mae gen i ofn bod yn rhaid i mi bwyso arnoch chi unwaith eto ynghylch y pwynt hwn, ac mae hyn oherwydd natur y mae'r ymadawiad honedig hwn wedi dod i'r amlwg yn y cyfryngau, fel yr adroddwyd ddydd Iau diwethaf gan brif ohebydd y Western Mail, Martin Shipton. Mae'n cyfeirio at y ffaith fod nifer o ffynonellau uwch, ac, fel y mae ef yn ei eirio, rhai sydd mewn sefyllfa dda yn Llywodraeth Cymru wedi rhoi'r wybodaeth iddo y bu trafodaethau ynghylch ymadawiad cynnar y Fonesig Shan Morgan. Nawr, ceir dau bosibilrwydd sy'n deillio o'r stori fel y'i hadroddwyd: naill ai mae'n wir, sy'n golygu y gallai fod gan yr Ysgrifennydd Parhaol achos i hawlio diswyddiad adeiladol, neu nid yw'n wir, ac felly mae rhywun yn ceisio tanseilio'r Ysgrifennydd Parhaol yn fwriadol. Bu'n rhaid i'ch Llywodraeth chi, o dan eich rhagflaenydd, wadu honiadau o friffio yn erbyn unigolion. Onid ydych chi rhywfaint yn bryderus ei bod yn ymddangos bod yr arfer hwn yn parhau?

First Minister, I'm afraid I have to press you again on this point, and this is because of the nature of the way this alleged departure has emerged in the media, as reported last Thursday by the Western Mail 's chief reporter, Martin Shipton. He refers to a number of senior, and, as he puts it, well-placed sources in the Welsh Government providing him with the information that there have been discussions about Dame Shan Morgan's early departure. Now, there are two possibilities arising from the story as reported: either it is true, in which case the Permanent Secretary might have a case to claim constructive dismissal, or it is not, in which case someone is trying to deliberately undermine the Permanent Secretary. The Government, under your predecessor, had to deny allegations of briefing against individuals. Aren't you just a bit concerned that this practice seems to be continuing?

Diolch yn fawr. Dwi eisiau rhoi enghraifft o rywbeth sy'n mynd y ffordd arall nawr. Yn adran 100 (4) o'r Bil cydgrynhoi, mae gyda ni enghraifft o ddarpariaeth oedd ar wyneb y Bil yn Neddf cynllunio 1990, ond sydd nawr wedi symud i bŵer i wneud rheoliadau. Pam mae hynny wedi digwydd? Ydych chi'n credu bod hynny'n cyd-fynd â Rheolau Sefydlog sy'n dweud mai dim ond mân newidiadau ddylai gael eu gwneud? Ac a oes enghreifftiau eraill o bŵer yn cael ei roi i Weinidogion Cymru i newid polisi?

Thank you very much. I want to mention an example now of something that goes the other way. In section 100 (4) of the consolidation Bill, we have an example of a provision currently on the face of the planning Act 1990, but that's now being moved to a regulation-making power. Why has that happened? Do you think that that is in line with the Standing Order that says that only minor changes should be made? And are there any other examples of powers being given to Welsh Ministers to change policy?

A hyn gwta ddeufis ar ôl adroddiad arall ar y gwasanaethau fasgwlaidd. Wyddoch chi, dau wasanaeth yn unig yng Nghymru a ddisgrifiwyd gan Arolygiaeth Gofal Iechyd Cymru fel gwasanaethau sydd angen eu gwella'n sylweddol. Mae'r ddau ohonynt ym Mwrdd Iechyd Prifysgol Betsi Cadwaladr - yn unman arall, dim ond ym Mwrdd Iechyd Prifysgol Betsi Cadwaladr. Mae angen i'r bwrdd iechyd wella, Weinidog. Nid wyf yn gwybod, a dweud y gwir, a yw newid strwythurol yn briodol. Nid wyf wedi fy argyhoeddi o hynny eto -

And this is just two months after another report on the vascular services. You know, there are just two services in Wales that have been described as services requiring significant improvement by HIW. Both of them are in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board - nowhere else, just the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. This health board needs to improve, Minister. I don't know, frankly, whether a structural change is appropriate. I'm not yet persuaded that that is going to be the case -

Fe gymerwn ni doriad byr nawr i baratoi yn dechnegol ar gyfer y bleidlais hynny.

We'll now take a short break to make technical preparations for those votes.