English: Thank you for the comments and questions. The health board review, the internal review, I know has regularly been referred to as being flawed. It's not a whitewash. When you look at and read the report they recognise there were failings in the way they went about their business, both through the initial employment of Kris Wade and through dealing with the complaints that were made about his conduct as an employee of the health board. And I think it's really important to recognise that we expect health boards to investigate themselves, and to understand, where something has gone wrong, including when it's gone seriously wrong, they still have a responsibility to investigate that conduct and to try for themselves to understand lessons to be learned, in addition to the ability to have an independent review. I think the fact that they've been prepared to say to themselves that they recognise that there were failings, they recognise that the initial complaints were not robustly investigated, that the approach focused too much on the believability of the complainants, rather than actually trying to find the truth - those are things that none of us should try and pretend are not in that report and are not serious issues in the here and now as to how we expect future concerns to be properly and robustly dealt with. In addition to those health boards needing to investigate themselves, I set out in this case, as I said earlier in response to the question and in the written statement, that HIW will undertake their own independent review, they will report and I will ensure that Members are fully up to date, including, of course, making available the report that they do provide.
Welsh: Diolch am y sylwadau a'r cwestiynau. Gwn fod adolygiad y bwrdd iechyd, yr adolygiad mewnol, wedi cael ei ddisgrifio'n gyson fel un diffygiol. Nid yw'n gwyngalchu. Pan fyddwch yn edrych ar yr adroddiad ac yn ei ddarllen, maent yn cydnabod bod methiannau yn y ffordd yr aethant ati i gyflogi Kris Wade yn y lle cyntaf ac i ymdrin â'r cwynion a wnaed yn erbyn ei ymddygiad fel un o weithwyr y bwrdd iechyd. Ac rwy'n credu ei bod yn bwysig iawn cydnabod ein bod yn disgwyl i fyrddau iechyd ymchwilio eu hunain, ac i ddeall, pan fydd rhywbeth wedi mynd o'i le, gan gynnwys pan fydd wedi mynd o'i le yn ddifrifol, fod cyfrifoldeb arnynt o hyd i ymchwilio i'r ymddygiad hwnnw a cheisio deall pa wersi sydd i'w dysgu drostynt eu hunain, yn ogystal â'r gallu i gael adolygiad annibynnol. Rwy'n credu bod y ffaith eu bod wedi bod yn barod i ddweud wrthynt eu hunain eu bod yn cydnabod methiannau, eu bod yn cydnabod na chafodd y cwynion cychwynnol eu hymchwilio'n drylwyr, fod y dull o weithredu'n canolbwyntio gormod ar ba mor gredadwy oedd y rhai a wnaeth y cwynion yn hytrach na cheisio dod o hyd i'r gwir - mae'r rheini'n bethau na ddylai neb ohonom geisio esgus nad ydynt yn yr adroddiad hwnnw ac nad ydynt yn faterion difrifol yma yn awr o ran sut rydym yn disgwyl i bryderon yn y dyfodol gael eu trin yn briodol ac yn drylwyr. Yn ychwanegol at yr angen i'r byrddau iechyd hynny ymchwilio eu hunain, fel y dywedais yn gynharach mewn ymateb i'r cwestiwn ac yn y datganiad ysgrifenedig, nodais yn yr achos hwn y bydd AGIC yn cynnal eu hadolygiad annibynnol eu hunain, byddant yn adrodd a byddaf yn sicrhau bod yr Aelodau'n cael y wybodaeth ddiweddaraf yn llawn, gan gynnwys rhyddhau'r adroddiad y byddant yn ei ddarparu.