English: I want to pick up on the comments made by Helen Mary Jones and others in referring to the power balance, and how there is an imbalance, not only within the culture that exists in this area, but within some of the rules that we have also, and how we need to change some of those rules in order to convey a clear message that we are tackling that imbalance, and that we are introducing a better balance between the complainant and the person who is the subject of a complaint. That's not to say that we are reducing the defence of and the fairness to an individual who is complained about, but we also need to empower that individual complainant. I will give you a few examples in the few minutes' contribution I will make to this debate. If someone were to bring a complaint against me and that the standards commissioner and the standards committee came to a decision that that complaint was valid, then I would have the right of appeal. If the commissioner and the committee came to the conclusion that the complaint was invalid, then the complainant would have no right of appeal. Now, to me, that is an imbalance and it's unfair. A complaint must be made within 12 months, and we know, of course, that people who have suffered aren't necessarily ready to bring a complaint in 12 months. It takes far, far longer for them to do that. But after 12 months, that's it. What can you do? So, we need to change that in order to empower individuals. I would go as far as to say that we don't need any deadline at all, because we see now how some historic cases from decades ago, perhaps, are emerging. So, I do think that we need to consider that issue too. There is also a situation in that if I were no longer an Assembly Member, then there would be no means of bringing a complaint against me. But what happens then if I was re-elected after a few years? Well, the timetable has lapsed and you can't make a complaint. So, there are a number of fundamental issues that we need to address in order to achieve a better balance within that balance of power that I mentioned. And the only other point that I would want to make is that I too regret and I'm very frustrated and shocked that the First Minister has responded as he has to the suggestion that the standards commissioner should have a role in looking at the ministerial code. I know that that would require legislative change and so on and so forth, I know that it would make it easier for people to understand the system, but most importantly, it would make it easier for those with a complaint to know where to go. Imagine a situation where someone, after great pain, has decided, 'I will make a complaint.' They go to the standards commissioner, and then they are given to understand, 'Well, no, you can't come to us, you have to go elsewhere with your complaint.' What kind of message - ? And I know that the standards commissioner would do that in a sensitive and responsible manner, but it's another barrier for an individual to feel that they are able to make a complaint, and I do regret that that First Minister feels - . And of course, he would still make the final decision too. No-one is suggesting that any power should be removed from the First Minister, and it's quite right that the First Minister should make that decision, of course. But, what it would mean is that that process of inquiring into a complaint would be taken out of the hands of Government and would be entirely independent - because there are complaints and doubts, and perhaps they are incorrect perceptions that that process isn't entirely independent - but it would give the public more confidence that it was an independent process. And just as the standards commissioner then brings a report to the standards committee in the context of the code of conduct for Members, that report would be submitted to the First Minister in the context of the ministerial code so that the First Minister could consider the evidence and come to his or her own conclusion and come to his or her own decision. So, any suggestion that power is being withdrawn from the First Minister in the context of the ministerial code is a complete misreading of the situation and sends exactly the same incorrect messages that we are trying to tackle and challenge in this debate this afternoon. So, I would echo the demand for any prospective First Minister to be willing to commit to relook at this issue. Because if we are serious about creating the culture that we want to see here, then it's these steps that are the minimum that we should be delivering.
Welsh: Rwyf i am bigo i fyny ar yr hyn yr oedd Helen Mary Jones yn ei ddweud, ac eraill, yn cyfeirio at y cydbwysedd grym - y power balance yma - a sut mae yna anghydbwysedd nid yn unig o fewn y diwylliant sydd yn bodoli yn y maes yna, ond o fewn rhai o'r rheolau sydd gennym ni yma yn y maes yma hefyd, a sut mae angen newid rhai o'r rheolau hynny er mwyn rhoi neges glir ein bod ni'n mynd i'r afael â'r anghydbwysedd yna, a'n bod ni yn cyflwyno gwell cydbwysedd rhwng rhywun sydd yn dod â chŵyn a rhywun sydd yn cael cwyn yn ei erbyn e neu hi. Nawr, nid yw hynny i ddweud ein bod ni'n lleihau'r amddiffyniad a'r tegwch i rywun sydd â chŵyn yn ei erbyn e neu hi, ond yn grymuso'r unigolion hynny sydd eisiau dod â chŵyn. Mi roddaf gwpwl o enghreifftiau yn yr ychydig funudau rydw i eisiau eu cyfrannu i'r ddadl yma. Petai yna rywun yn dod â chŵyn yn fy erbyn i, a bod y comisiynydd safonau a'r pwyllgor safonau yn dod i benderfyniad bod y gŵyn yn un ddilys, yna byddai gen i hawl i apelio. Os ydy'r comisiynydd a'r pwyllgor yn dod i gasgliad nad yw hi'n gŵyn ddilys, nid oes gan yr achwynydd ddim hawl i apelio. I fi, mae hynny'n anghytbwys ac yn annheg. Mae'n rhaid i gŵyn gael ei gwneud o fewn blwyddyn, ac rydym yn gwybod, wrth gwrs, fod pobl sydd efallai wedi dioddef ddim yn barod i ddod â chŵyn mewn 12 mis. Mae'n cymryd llawer, llawer yn hirach iddyn nhw wneud hynny, ond ar ôl 12 mis, dyna fe - beth allwch chi wneud? Felly, mae angen newid hynny er mwyn grymuso unigolion. Fe fyddwn i'n mynd mor bell â dweud bod dim angen amserlen o gwbl, oherwydd rŷm ni'n gweld nawr sut mae rhai achosion hanesyddol - ddegawdau wedyn, efallai - yn dod i'r amlwg. Felly, rydw i'n meddwl bod angen edrych ar hynny hefyd. Mae yna sefyllfa hefyd, wrth gwrs, lle petawn i ddim bellach yn Aelod Cynulliad, yna ni fyddai modd dod â chŵyn yn fy erbyn i, ond beth sy'n digwydd wedyn os ydw i'n cael fy ailethol mewn rhai blynyddoedd yn ôl i'r Cynulliad? Wel, mae'r amserlen wedi gor-redeg, ac felly allwch chi ddim dod â chŵyn. Felly, mae yna lawer o bethau sylfaenol y dylem ni fod yn edrych arnyn nhw er mwyn cael gwell cydbwysedd o fewn y cydbwysedd grym yna rŷm ni'n sôn amdano fe. A'r unig bwynt arall y byddwn i'n awyddus i'w wneud yw rydw innau hefyd yn gresynu, yn synnu ac yn rhwystredig eithriadol bod y Prif Weinidog wedi ymateb fel y mae e i'r awgrym y dylai'r comisiynydd safonau fod â rôl o fewn edrych ar y cod gweinidogol. Rydw i'n gwybod y byddai hynny'n golygu newid deddfwriaethol ac yn y blaen. Rydw i'n gwybod y byddai fe'n ei gwneud hi'n haws i bobl ddeall y gyfundrefn ond, yn bwysicach na dim, mi fyddai'n ei gwneud hi'n haws i bobl sydd â chŵyn i wybod lle i fynd. Oherwydd dychmygwch chi'r sefyllfa lle mae rhywun, ar ôl gwewyr eithriadol, wedi penderfynu, 'Rydw i yn mynd i ddod â chŵyn', yn mynd at y comisiynydd safonau ac, wrth gwrs, yn cael ar ddeall, 'O, na, allwch chi ddim dod atom ni, mae'n rhaid i chi fynd i rywle arall.' Wel, pa fath o neges - ? Rydw i'n gwybod y byddai'r comisiynydd safonau yn gwneud hynny mewn modd sensitif a chyfrifol, ond mae e'n rhwystr arall i unigolyn deimlo eu bod nhw'n gallu dod â chŵyn, ac rydw i yn gresynu bod y Prif Weinidog yn teimlo - . Wrth gwrs, fe fyddai'n dal i wneud y penderfyniad terfynol. Nid oes neb yn awgrymu bod unrhyw rym yn cael ei gymryd oddi ar y Prif Weinidog, ac mae'n berffaith iawn mai'r Prif Weinidog fyddai'n cael gwneud y penderfyniad yna - wrth gwrs ei fod e. Ond beth a fyddai fe'n ei olygu fyddai bod y broses honno o ymchwilio i mewn i gŵyn yn cael ei chymryd allan o ddwylo'r Llywodraeth i fod yn gwbl annibynnol - oherwydd mae yna gwynion ac mae yna amheuon, ac efallai mai canfyddiadau anghywir ŷn nhw, nad yw'r broses yna yn gwbl annibynnol - ond mi fyddai'n rhoi mwy o hyder i'r cyhoedd fod y broses yn annibynnol. Ac yn yr un modd ag y mae'r comisiynydd safonau yn dod wedyn ag adroddiad i'r pwyllgor safonau yng nghyd-destun y cod ymddygiad Aelodau, mi fyddai'r adroddiad hwnnw'n mynd i'r Prif Weinidog yng nghyd-destun y cod gweinidogol er mwyn i'r Prif Weinidog ystyried y dystiolaeth a dod i'w gasgliad ei hunan a dod i'w benderfyniad ei hunan. Felly, mae unrhyw awgrym bod grym yn cael ei gymryd oddi ar y Prif Weinidog yng nghyd-destun y cod gweinidogol yn gamarwain llwyr ac yn anfon yr union negeseuon anghywir rŷm ni'n trio eu taclo a'u herio yn y ddadl yma y prynhawn yma. Felly, mi fyddwn i'n ategu yr alwad ar unrhyw ddarpar Brif Weinidog i fod yn barod i ymrwymo i edrych eto ar hyn. Oherwydd os ydym ni o ddifrif ynglŷn â chreu y diwylliant rŷm ni am ei weld, yna y camau yma yw'r peth lleiaf y gallem ni fod yn eu cyflawni.