English: It would be good to have answers to that and all the other questions as part of this debate. But, failing that, they do need to be answered somehow. Now, the Plaid Cymru position on this has been to advocate greater scrutiny. We want as many of the facts to be established as possible. We note that the First Minister has said that he's ready to face scrutiny, yet today's Welsh Government amendment manages to close down one route for that open and transparent scrutiny to take place, even if it does create another route. The First Minister announced last week that he's listened to those who have called for an independent referral process and that the ministerial code has been amended. Plaid Cymru has, of course, long called for the establishment of some kind of independent adjudicator to police the ministerial code. It simply is not right that the First Minister is police, judge and jury when it comes to Ministers' behaviour, and it's especially not right that he is responsible for policing his own behaviour. We first called for this independent adjudication back in 2014, during an unrelated issue, and we called for it again in 2016. Scotland has an independent adviser in place and has had so since 2008, and the procedure has been used there six times since it was introduced. So, the change of position on this point from the Government is welcome, but it begs the question why did it take this albeit poorly worded motion to force the Government to take action. Why did it take the prospect of public, on the record, scrutiny to make this happen? And is it right that the Government, through the cracking of the whip, determines the process by which this matter is heard? The problem here for Plaid Cymru is that the Government has placed a 'delete all' amendment, and, by doing that, the Government party gets to decide how the Government leader is scrutinised. We've long wanted this type of surveillance of the ministerial code, and, had the Government done this before, they may well have avoided some of the problems that they face today. But we cannot support one form of scrutiny being used to delete another form of scrutiny. We want the independent adjudicator as well as full parliamentary scrutiny. Now, it's likely that the Government amendment will pass, and I find this regrettable. Plaid Cymru maintains that the two forms of scrutiny are not mutually exclusive. As a result, we will vote for the motion and against the Government amendment. I'd just like the Government party to consider this: do you think it's a good look to be seen to be looking as though you are avoiding full scrutiny? I would argue that it isn't. If there was no bullying, and if there were no other issues that should cause us all concern in the way that the Government is run and the culture of Government, then a full and open process should not be feared. Arguments that this particular committee is too big and unwieldy are technical arguments. There's a principle at stake here. Do we shine a public, open, honest light on these allegations, or do we allow the First Minister to decide the process by which he is answerable? Natural justice should provide only one answer to that question.
Welsh: Buasai'n dda cael atebion i hynny a'r holl gwestiynau eraill fel rhan o'r ddadl hon. Ond o fethu gwneud hynny, mae angen eu hateb rywsut. Nawr, safbwynt Plaid Cymru ynglŷn â hyn yw hyrwyddo mwy o graffu. Rydym eisiau i gymaint o'r ffeithiau ag y bo modd gael eu sefydlu. Rydym yn nodi bod y Prif Weinidog wedi dweud ei fod yn barod i wynebu craffu, ac eto mae gwelliant Llywodraeth Cymru heddiw yn llwyddo i gau un llwybr i'r craffu agored a thryloyw hwnnw allu digwydd, hyd yn oed os yw'n creu llwybr arall. Cyhoeddodd y Prif Weinidog yr wythnos diwethaf ei fod wedi gwrando ar y rhai sydd wedi galw am broses atgyfeirio annibynnol a bod cod y gweinidogion wedi cael ei ddiwygio. Wrth gwrs, mae Plaid Cymru wedi bod yn galw ers amser am sefydlu rhyw fath o ddyfarnwr annibynnol i blismona cod y gweinidogion. Nid yw'n iawn o gwbl fod y Prif Weinidog yn blismon, yn farnwr a rheithgor mewn perthynas ag ymddygiad Gweinidogion, ac yn arbennig, nid yw'n iawn ei fod yn gyfrifol am blismona ei ymddygiad ei hun. Galwasom yn gyntaf am ddyfarnu annibynnol o'r fath yn ôl yn 2014, wrth drafod mater heb gysylltiad â'r mater hwn, a galwasom amdano wedyn yn 2016. Mae gan yr Alban gynghorydd annibynnol ar waith ac wedi bod ers 2008, ac mae'r weithdrefn wedi'i defnyddio yno chwe gwaith ers ei chyflwyno. Felly, mae newid safbwynt ar y pwynt hwn gan y Llywodraeth i'w groesawu, ond mae'n codi'r cwestiwn pam ein bod wedi gorfod cael y cynnig hwn, er ei fod wedi'i eirio'n wael, i orfodi'r Llywodraeth i roi camau ar waith. Pam y cymerodd y posibilrwydd o graffu cyhoeddus wedi'i gofnodi i wneud i hyn ddigwydd? A yw'n iawn fod y Llywodraeth, drwy daro'r chwip, yn pennu'r broses ar gyfer rhoi sylw i'r mater hwn? Y broblem yma i Blaid Cymru yw bod y Llywodraeth wedi gosod gwelliant dileu popeth, a thrwy wneud hynny, mae plaid y Llywodraeth yn cael penderfynu sut y caiff arweinydd y Llywodraeth ei graffu. Rydym wedi bod eisiau'r math hwn o wyliadwriaeth ar god y gweinidogion ers amser hir, a phe bai'r Llywodraeth wedi gwneud hyn o'r blaen, efallai y buasent wedi osgoi rhai o'r problemau y maent yn eu hwynebu heddiw. Ond ni allwn gefnogi defnyddio un ffurf ar graffu i ddileu math arall o graffu. Rydym eisiau'r dyfarnwr annibynnol yn ogystal â chraffu seneddol llawn. Nawr, mae'n debygol y bydd gwelliant y Llywodraeth yn pasio, ac rwy'n gresynu at hynny. Mae Plaid Cymru o'r farn fod lle i'r ddwy ffurf ar graffu. O ganlyniad, byddwn yn pleidleisio dros y cynnig ac yn erbyn gwelliant y Llywodraeth. Hoffwn i blaid y Llywodraeth ystyried hyn: a ydych yn credu ei bod yn edrych yn dda i chi gael eich gweld fel pe baech yn osgoi craffu llawn? Buaswn yn dadlau fel arall. Os na fu unrhyw fwlio, ac os nad oes unrhyw faterion eraill a ddylai beri pryder i bob un ohonom yn y ffordd y caiff y Llywodraeth ei rhedeg a diwylliant y Llywodraeth, yna ni ddylid ofni proses lawn ac agored. Dadleuon technegol yw dadleuon fod y pwyllgor arbennig hwn yn rhy fawr ac afrosgo. Mae yna egwyddor yn y fantol yma. A ydym yn tynnu sylw cyhoeddus, agored a gonest at yr honiadau hyn, neu a ydym yn caniatáu i'r Prif Weinidog benderfynu ar y broses y mae'n atebol iddi? Un ateb yn unig a ddylai fod i'r cwestiwn hwnnw yn ôl cyfiawnder naturiol.