English: May I thank the committee Chair for her statement? In listening to the statement, I think it's become clear that there are three tasks among the many other tasks that we need to deliver here that we should be mainly focused on. First of all, we do need to create a better understanding within this institution of the institution's expectations in terms of behaviour among Members and staff, and the broader Assembly family. We need to create greater clarity too, I think, among the public, particularly on what we believe is acceptable and what is unacceptable in terms of behaviours. Also, there is an entirely practical job of work to be done: we need to raise far more awareness of the processes in existence to make a complaint, to secure justice for victims and to hold offenders to account. There is one thing highlighted in the fact that I used the word 'processes' - the plural - and this has already been raised in the evidence sessions that the committee has had in this inquiry. We do have a code of conduct for Assembly Members, but we also have a different code of conduct for Ministers, and there are important questions to be asked in that regard. Are the expectations of those two codes in alignment? Is there consistency in terms of what is acceptable and isn't acceptable in the AM codes and the ministerial code? And of course, there are two different processes for making complaints. Much of this may be very clear to us because we are living among it every day, but put yourself in the shoes of a member of the public and I don't think that this situation is quite as clear as perhaps we would want. One could approach the standards commissioner, and the standards commissioner may explain, 'Well, no, you have to take your complaint to the office of the First Minister'. I have every confidence that the commissioner's office would do that in an appropriate and sensitive way, but it's another step and it's another hoop that that individual has to jump through. It's these factors that make it more difficult for these individuals and make it less likely that these individuals will proceed with their complaints, at a time, of course, when they are vulnerable and they are lacking in confidence. We have to make these processes as accessible and as simple as possible. Don't forget, of course, that the AM code is relevant to Assembly Members not only in our professional lives but in our private lives. So, why not encompass the ministerial roles within that single code, and give the responsibility to the independent commissioner for standards to scrutinise that and to make recommendations in the context of Assembly Members to the standards committee and in the ministerial context to the First Minister? So, may I ask: wouldn't it be better, in terms of meeting the laudable aims that you've listed in your statement - in terms of having a clear and consistent process that's easily understood and that is accessible - wouldn't having a single process for all Assembly Members in all capacities be more true to those principles, rather than having two separate systems as we currently have, never mind the regimes of the political parties, as we've already heard reference to? There are a number of other questions that have already been raised. Many feel that there is inconsistency in the right to appeal within the current system, where an Assembly Member can appeal against an adjudication but a complainant can't. The limit of 12 months to make complaints is also something that I think needs to be questioned, because many people who bring complaints forward don't feel that they're able to do that or aren't able to do that for a longer period of time, perhaps, than that 12-month period, and we have to be sensitive to that too. So, there are many factors that do need to be taken into account, and I know that the standards committee will look at all of these. But, of course, it all comes to the central point of the statement, namely that we need a broader culture change, as you said, and that won't happen as a result of one inquiry. Everyone recognises and acknowledges that there isn't a single solution to this. There's a great deal that must happen in order to tackle all of these issues. Of course, we need broader conversations on some of these important areas that we are covering here - conversations within the institution, yes, but we need conversations throughout society too. I would like to conclude by asking the Chair what role she feels that we as Assembly Members have, and the standards committee specifically, perhaps, in leading that process to ensure that those important conversations do happen.
Welsh: A gaf innau ddiolch i Gadeirydd y pwyllgor am ei datganiad? Wrth wrando ar y datganiad, rwy'n meddwl ei bod yn dod yn glir bod yna dair tasg ymhlith y nifer fawr o dasgau sydd angen i ni eu cyflawni fan hyn y dylem ni fod yn ffocysu arnyn nhw. Yn gyntaf, wrth gwrs, mae angen creu gwell dealltwriaeth o fewn y sefydliad yma o ddisgwyliadau y sefydliad o safbwynt ymddygiad ymhlith Aelodau a staff, a theulu ehangach y Cynulliad yma. Mae angen creu gwell eglurder hefyd, rwy'n meddwl, ymhlith y cyhoedd yn enwedig o beth rŷm ni'n credu sy'n dderbyniol a beth sydd ddim yn dderbyniol o safbwynt ymddygiad. Ac, wrth gwrs, mae angen job cwbl ymarferol o waith: mae angen codi llawer mwy o ymwybyddiaeth ynglŷn â'r prosesau sy'n bodoli i fedru gwneud cwyn, i fedru sicrhau cyfiawnder i ddioddefwyr, ac i fedru dal y rhai sy'n tramgwyddo i gyfrif. Ond mae yna un gwendid yn cael ei amlygu yn y ffaith fy mod i'n defnyddio'r gair 'prosesau' - yn y lluosog, wrth gwrs - ac mae hyn, yn amlwg, eisoes wedi codi ei ben yn yr un sesiwn dystiolaeth mae'r pwyllgor wedi ei chael yn yr ymchwiliad yma, sef bod gennym ni god ymddygiad i Aelodau Cynulliad, ond hefyd mae gennym ni god ymddygiad gwahanol ar gyfer Gweinidogion. Mae yna gwestiynau pwysig i'w gofyn yn hynny o beth. A ydy disgwyliadau y ddau god yna yn gyson â'i gilydd? A oes yna gysondeb o ran beth sydd yn dderbyniol a beth sydd ddim yn dderbyniol yng nghod ymddygiad Aelodau'r Cynulliad a'r cod ymddygiad gweinidogol? Ac, wrth gwrs, mae yna ddwy broses wahanol o fynd ati i wneud cwyn. Nawr, efallai bod llawer o hyn yn weddol glir i ni oherwydd rŷm ni yn byw a bod yn y lle yma, ond rhowch eich hunain yn esgidiau aelod o'r cyhoedd ac nid wyf yn meddwl ei bod hi cweit mor glir ag efallai y byddem ni'n dymuno. Mi allai rhywun fynd at y comisiynydd safonau, a'r comisiynydd safonau yn esbonio, 'Na, mae'n rhaid i chi fynd â'ch cŵyn i swyddfa'r Prif Weinidog', ac mae gen i bob ffydd y byddai swyddfa'r comisiynydd yn gwneud hynny mewn modd sensitif ac addas. Ond, wrth gwrs, mae'n gam arall. Mae e yn hŵp arall i'r unigolyn yna orfod neidio drwyddo. Ffactorau fel hyn, wrth gwrs, sydd wedi ei gwneud hi yn anoddach i'r unigolion yma, ac yn llai tebygol y bydd yr unigolion yma yn mynd ymlaen â'u cwynion, ar adeg, wrth gwrs, pan maen nhw'n fregus, pan maen nhw'n ddihyder. Dyna pam fod rhaid i ni wneud y prosesau yma mor hygyrch ac mor syml ag sy'n bosibl. Cofiwch, wrth gwrs, fod cod ymddygiad Aelodau'r Cynulliad yn berthnasol i Aelodau Cynulliad nid yn unig yn ein bywyd proffesiynol, ond yn ein bywyd preifat hefyd. Felly, pam ddim, yn fy marn i, cwmpasu rôl gweinidogol hefyd o fewn yr un cod, a rhoi'r cyfrifoldeb i'r comisiynydd safonau annibynnol i graffu ar hynny, ond wedyn dod ag argymhellion yng nghyd-destun Aelodau Cynulliad i'r pwyllgor safonau, ond yng nghyd-destun y Gweinidogion wedyn i'r Prif Weinidog? Felly, a gaf i ofyn: oni fyddai'n well o ran cwrdd â'r nodau teilwng iawn rydych chi'n eu rhestru yn eich datganiad - o ran cael proses glir a chyson, ei fod yn hawdd i'w deall, ei fod yn hygyrch i bawb - oni fyddai cael un proses i bob Aelod Cynulliad ym mhob capasiti yn fwy triw i'r egwyddorion hynny, yn hytrach na chael dwy gyfundrefn fel sydd nawr, heb sôn, wrth gwrs, am gyfundrefnau y pleidiau gwleidyddol fel rydym ni eisoes wedi clywed cyfeiriad atyn nhw? Nawr, mae yna sawl cwestiwn arall wedi codi eu pennau yn barod. Mae yna nifer yn teimlo bod yna anghysondeb yn yr hawl i apelio o fewn y gyfundrefn bresennol, lle mae Aelod Cynulliad yn medru apelio yn erbyn dyfarniad, ond nid yw achwynydd. Mae'r terfyn o 12 mis i ddod â chŵyn gerbron hefyd yn rhywbeth rwy'n meddwl sydd angen ei gwestiynu, oherwydd nid yw nifer o bobl sydd yn dod â chŵyn yn teimlo eu bod nhw'n gallu gwneud hynny - ddim yn barod i wneud hynny am gyfnod hirach, o bosib, na 12 mis. Mae angen bod yn sensitif i hynny hefyd. Felly, mae yna lawer o ffactorau yn y pair sydd angen eu hystyried, ac rwy'n gwybod y bydd y pwyllgor safonau yn edrych ar y rhain. Ond, wrth gwrs, mae hi i gyd yn dod at bwynt canolog y datganiad, sef bod angen newid diwylliant ehangach, fel rŷch chi'n ei ddweud. Daw hynny ddim o ganlyniad i un ymchwiliad, ac mae pawb yn cydnabod nad oes dim jest un ateb i hyn. Mae yna lawer iawn sy'n gorfod digwydd er mwyn mynd i'r afael â'r holl faterion yma. Ac, wrth gwrs, mae angen sgyrsiau ehangach am rai o'r meysydd pwysig yma sydd dan sylw - sgyrsiau o fewn y sefydliad yma, ie, ond sgyrsiau ehangach drwy gymdeithas hefyd. Mi fyddwn i'n licio cloi drwy ofyn i'r Cadeirydd pa rôl mae hi yn teimlo sydd gennym ni fel Aelodau Cynulliad, a'r pwyllgor safonau yn benodol, efallai, i arwain y broses yna i sicrhau fod y sgyrsiau pwysig yma yn digwydd.