English: I do believe that we need to reflect on the evidence that is before us, in particular when we look at the comment around the reshuffle that, as I've drawn attention to before, via social media, via text messages, via comment from commentators, are there for all to see. I could offer any one of 101 different examples of such comment. These comments were all referring to sources that were putting information into the public domain for speculation, for conversation, that alluded to people leaving that Government, people coming into Government. Indeed, most people expect, around Cabinet reshuffles and around politics in general, that there is this chatter and there is this debate, shall we say, and very often people want to try and show their worth by pretending to have, or actually having, information to hand to show that they're connected to the process. I could quote any one of a number of tweets here. One says: 'Told by sources that Carl Sargeant @wgcs_community losing his job'. That was a tweet from a journalist. I could go on then to a lobbyist that talked about the predictions of what the new Cabinet would look like, which talked of: '2 Cabinet Members to leave, a promotion or two and 3 of the 2015 intake in. And possibly a little extra surprise.' All of that was actually informed information, as I understand it, which, when you look at the events around the Cabinet reshuffle, came into reality. We've also had evidence given only today, for example, from a leading figure from a previous Government that did talk about a lobbying company, Deryn, actually having that information and saying that 'the key issues I have given in evidence to the leak inquiry' - he said that he's given this evidence to the leak inquiry - 'were that journalists had told me that they had received a text from the Deryn employee well before the reshuffle announcement stating that Carl Sargeant was to lose his job.' A Labour AM, now confirmed as the Member for Llanelli, told the Assembly Labour group on 9 November that he had received a text on 3 November in advance of the reshuffle stating the same, but without specifying who sent this. Some MPs were told in advance of the reshuffle being announced that Carl Sargeant would be losing his job. These are all in the public domain. That's not something I have commented on and put out myself; it's not a comment attributed to me. Those examples were all there, and, again, that's why I, and many others I'm sure, would like to understand the methodology and the reasoning of how the Permanent Secretary arrived at the conclusions in her report. Just before the recess, this half-term recess, it was perfectly appropriate, as the First Minister's spokesman saw fit at that time, to refer to the report, to say in a BBC report, that the message, when he was talking about text messages around the time of the reshuffle: 'This message was investigated as part of the leak inquiry which found that no leak from the Welsh Government took place. We cannot comment further.' It seems that, when they choose to cite the report, to obviously talk to journalists, they can do it - i.e. spokespeople for the Welsh Government - yet when we, as Welsh Assembly Members, wish to have sight of that report, we are denied that opportunity. Indeed, in First Minister's questions, when I was here at the end of January questioning the First Minister on the report, I was told that I was seeking to 'out' people who had given evidence to that inquiry. Far from it - at the end of the day, that would be the last thing that anyone would wish to do. Where people have requested that confidentiality, that confidentiality, as the motion specifies this afternoon, should be respected, and should be guaranteed in fact. But I would ask, and I think it's the leader of the house who's responding to the debate this afternoon, if I'm correct in assuming that - . Because one of the things that did come up in the exchange between me and the First Minister at the time was that the First Minister did state in his reply to me that people were asked - and I quote him directly here: 'People are asked to give evidence confidentially.' So, I would be grateful - . Was that a prerequisite to all witnesses before they gave evidence, that the evidence would be treated confidentially? Because that does seem quite a condition to place on that evidence, in the sure-fire knowledge that you would then have a reason not to make that report available. I'd seek clarity on that statement, please, if it is the leader of the house who is responding to this debate this afternoon. I have, since the First Minister's questions of 30 January, written to the Permanent Secretary expressing my concerns around the answers of First Minister's questions of that day, in particular around the evidence that was gathered by the inquiry and subsequent Welsh Assembly written questions that have come back indicating further sources of information that I sought clarity about, to see whether they were also included in the inquiry. My letters of 30 January and 31 January have gone unanswered to date. Again, I do not think that is a satisfactory position to be in, one month nearly after those letters were sent, that I have to date - . I haven't even received an acknowledgement, I have to say, and so some form of acknowledgement or response would be appreciated. Hence that's why we're standing here today debating this very subject, because I cannot even elicit a response from the Permanent Secretary to letters that I have sent over a month ago. Indeed, in that intervening month, I've had written questions back from the First Minister when I have asked about the guidance around this inquiry and, indeed, the guidance that prohibited the publication of the report. The First Minister referred to the established procedures around leak investigations that are well understood by the civil service, and have been cited by the Permanent Secretary as reasons not to proceed with publication. And I still have not received my request for sight of those regulations, and how those regulations have been interpreted, and that was at the beginning of February. This is a highly sensitive and emotive subject. It is one of four reports. I believe that we need to set the precedent as an Assembly that this report should see the light of day, and we as Assembly Members do have the right to look at that report, understand that report and its conclusions. That is a basic right, I would say. As a legislature and as an Assembly, we should be voting in favour of this motion this afternoon to make sure that we set that precedent and that report is made available to us as Assembly Members. Nothing less will do, and I urge Members in the Chamber today to support the motion that is before you, and ultimately allow the sunshine of transparency to shine on this report as a basic prerequiste, so that we can set the precedent for further reports that we know will be coming before us once the QC and the James Hamilton reports have reported as well. That is why I urge this Chamber to support the motion that is before you.
Welsh: Credaf fod angen inni fyfyrio ar y dystiolaeth sydd ger ein bron, yn enwedig wrth inni edrych ar y sylwadau'n ymwneud â'r ad-drefnu sydd, fel y nodais o'r blaen, drwy'r cyfryngau cymdeithasol, drwy negeseuon testun, drwy sylwadau gan sylwebwyr, yno i bawb ei weld. Gallwn gynnig unrhyw un o 101 o enghreifftiau gwahanol o sylwadau o'r fath. Roedd y sylwadau hyn i gyd yn cyfeirio at ffynonellau a oedd yn rhyddhau gwybodaeth i'r cyhoedd ei hystyried, ei thrafod, gwybodaeth sy'n cyfeirio at bobl yn gadael y Llywodraeth honno, pobl yn dod yn rhan o'r Llywodraeth. Yn wir, mae'r rhan fwyaf o bobl yn disgwyl, wrth ad-drefnu'r Cabinet ac mewn gwleidyddiaeth yn gyffredinol, fod yna sgwrsio a bod yna ddadl, gawn ni ddweud, ac mae pobl yn aml iawn am geisio dangos eu gwerth drwy esgus bod, neu drwy fod â gwybodaeth wrth law i ddangos eu bod yn gysylltiedig â'r broses. Gallwn ddyfynnu nifer o negeseuon trydar yma. Mae un yn dweud ei fod wedi clywed gan ffynonellau fod Carl Sargeant @wgcs_community yn colli ei swydd. Dyna drydariad gan newyddiadurwr. Gallwn fynd ymlaen at lobïwr a oedd yn darogan sut olwg a fyddai ar y Cabinet newydd, sef 2 Aelod Cabinet i adael, dyrchafiad neu ddau a 3 o'r rhai a etholwyd yn 2015 i mewn. A sypreis bach ychwanegol o bosibl. Roedd hyn oll yn wybodaeth a gafwyd mewn gwirionedd, yn ôl yr hyn a ddeallaf, a phan edrychwch ar y digwyddiadau yn sgil ad-drefnu'r Cabinet, cafodd ei wireddu. Hefyd cawsom dystiolaeth heddiw ddiwethaf, er enghraifft, gan ffigwr blaenllaw o Lywodraeth flaenorol a siaradodd am gwmni lobïo, Deryn, a oedd â'r wybodaeth honno ac a oedd yn dweud bod 'y materion allweddol a roddais mewn tystiolaeth i'r ymchwiliad i ddatgelu gwybodaeth heb ganiatâd' - dywedodd ei fod wedi rhoi'r dystiolaeth hon i'r ymchwiliad i ddatgelu gwybodaeth heb ganiatâd - 'oedd bod newyddiadurwyr wedi dweud wrthyf eu bod wedi derbyn neges destun gan y sawl a gyflogwyd gan Deryn ymhell cyn y cyhoeddiad ynghylch yr ad-drefnu yn datgan bod Carl Sargeant yn mynd i golli ei swydd.' Dywedodd Aelod Cynulliad Llafur, y cadarnhawyd bellach mai'r Aelod dros Lanelli ydoedd, wrth grŵp Llafur y Cynulliad ar 9 Tachwedd ei fod wedi cael neges destun ar 3 Tachwedd, cyn yr ad-drefnu, yn dweud yr un peth, ond heb nodi pwy a'i hanfonodd. Cafodd rhai Aelodau Seneddol wybod cyn i'r ad-drefnu gael ei gyhoeddi y byddai Carl Sargeant yn colli ei swydd. Mae'r pethau hyn oll yn gyhoeddus. Nid yw'n rhywbeth rwyf wedi gwneud sylwadau arno a'i gyhoeddi fy hun; nid yw'n sylw y gellir ei briodoli i mi. Roedd yr enghreifftiau hynny yno i gyd, ac unwaith eto, dyna pam yr hoffwn i, ac eraill rwy'n siŵr, ddeall y fethodoleg a'r rhesymeg o ran sut y daeth yr Ysgrifennydd Parhaol i'r casgliadau y daeth iddynt yn ei hadroddiad. Ychydig cyn y toriad, y toriad hanner tymor hwn, roedd yn gwbl briodol, fel y gwelai llefarydd y Prif Weinidog ar y pryd, i gyfeirio at yr adroddiad, i ddweud mewn adroddiad BBC, am y neges, pan oedd yn siarad am negeseuon testun o gwmpas adeg yr ad-drefnu: Archwiliwyd y neges hon fel rhan o'r ymchwiliad i'r datgelu heb ganiatâd a ganfu na ddigwyddodd unrhyw ddatgelu heb ganiatâd gan Lywodraeth Cymru. Ni allwn wneud sylwadau pellach. Mae'n ymddangos, pan fyddant yn dewis cyfeirio at yr adroddiad, er mwyn siarad gyda newyddiadurwyr wrth gwrs, y cânt wneud hynny - hynny yw, llefarwyr ar ran Llywodraeth Cymru - ac eto pan fyddwn ni, fel Aelodau Cynulliad Cymru, eisiau gweld yr adroddiad hwnnw, cawn ein hamddifadu o'r cyfle. Yn wir, mewn cwestiynau i'r Prif Weinidog, pan oeddwn yma ddiwedd mis Ionawr yn holi'r Prif Weinidog am yr adroddiad, dywedwyd wrthyf fy mod yn ceisio datgelu pwy oedd y bobl a oedd wedi rhoi tystiolaeth i'r ymchwiliad hwnnw. Dim o gwbl - yn y pen draw, dyna'r peth olaf y byddai neb yn dymuno ei wneud. Pan fo pobl wedi gofyn am y cyfrinachedd hwnnw, fel y mae'r cynnig y prynhawn yma yn ei nodi, dylid parchu'r cyfrinachedd, dylid ei warantu mewn gwirionedd. Ond hoffwn ofyn, ac arweinydd y tŷ sydd yn ymateb i'r ddadl y prynhawn yma, os wyf yn iawn i feddwl hynny - . Oherwydd un o'r pethau a ddaeth yn amlwg yn y sgwrs rhyngof fi a'r Prif Weinidog ar y pryd oedd bod y Prif Weinidog wedi dweud yn ei ymateb i mi fod gofyn i bobl - ac rwy'n ei ddyfynnu'n uniongyrchol yma: Gofynnir i bobl roi tystiolaeth yn gyfrinachol. Felly, buaswn yn ddiolchgar - . A oedd hynny'n rhagofyniad i bob tyst cyn iddynt roi tystiolaeth, y byddai'r dystiolaeth yn cael ei thrin yn gyfrinachol? Oherwydd mae hynny'n ymddangos yn dipyn o amod i'w gosod ar y dystiolaeth honno, gan wybod yn bendant wedyn y byddai gennych reswm dros beidio â sicrhau bod yr adroddiad hwnnw ar gael. Hoffwn gael eglurhad ar y datganiad hwnnw, os gwelwch yn dda, os mai arweinydd y tŷ sydd yn ymateb i'r ddadl hon y prynhawn yma. Ers y cwestiynau i'r Prif Weinidog ar 30 Ionawr, rwyf wedi ysgrifennu at yr Ysgrifennydd Parhaol yn mynegi fy mhryderon ynghylch yr atebion i gwestiynau'r Prif Weinidog y diwrnod hwnnw, yn enwedig ynghylch y dystiolaeth a gasglwyd gan yr ymchwiliad a chwestiynau ysgrifenedig Cynulliad Cymru dilynol a ddaeth yn ôl yn nodi ffynonellau pellach o wybodaeth y gofynnais am eglurhad yn eu cylch, i weld a gawsant hwy hefyd eu cynnwys yn yr ymchwiliad. Ni chefais ateb hyd yma i fy llythyrau dyddiedig 30 Ionawr a 31 Ionawr. Unwaith eto, nid wyf yn credu bod honno'n sefyllfa foddhaol i fod ynddi bron fis wedi i'r llythyrau hynny gael eu hanfon - . Nid wyf wedi cael llythyr cydnabod hyd yn oed, rhaid imi ddweud, ac felly buaswn yn gwerthfawrogi rhyw fath o gydnabyddiaeth neu ymateb. Felly dyna pam rydym yn sefyll yma heddiw yn trafod y pwnc hwn, oherwydd ni allaf ennyn unrhyw ymateb gan yr Ysgrifennydd Parhaol i lythyrau a anfonais dros fis yn ôl. Yn wir, yn y mis ers hynny, rwyf wedi cael cwestiynau ysgrifenedig yn ôl gan y Prif Weinidog pan ofynnais am y canllawiau ar gyfer yr ymchwiliad hwn ac yn wir, y canllawiau a oedd yn gwahardd cyhoeddi'r adroddiad. Cyfeiriodd y Prif Weinidog at y gweithdrefnau sefydledig parthed ymchwiliadau i ddatgelu gwybodaeth heb ganiatâd, gweithdrefnau y mae'r gwasanaeth sifil yn eu deall yn dda, a chawsant eu nodi gan yr Ysgrifennydd Parhaol fel rhesymau dros beidio â symud ymlaen i gyhoeddi'r adroddiad. Ac mae fy nghais i gael gweld y rheoliadau hynny, a sut y cafodd y rheoliadau eu dehongli, yn dal i fod heb ei dderbyn, ac roedd hynny ar ddechrau mis Chwefror. Mae hwn yn bwnc sensitif ac emosiynol iawn. Mae'n un o bedwar adroddiad. Credaf fod angen inni osod cynsail fel Cynulliad y dylai'r adroddiad hwn gael ei gyhoeddi, ac mae gennym ni fel Aelodau Cynulliad hawl i edrych ar yr adroddiad hwnnw, i ddeall yr adroddiad hwnnw a'i gasgliadau. Dyna hawl sylfaenol, buaswn yn dweud. Fel deddfwrfa ac fel Cynulliad, dylem bleidleisio o blaid y cynnig hwn y prynhawn yma er mwyn gwneud yn siŵr ein bod yn gosod y cynsail hwnnw a bod yr adroddiad ar gael i ni fel Aelodau'r Cynulliad. Ni fydd dim byd llai yn gwneud y tro, ac rwy'n annog yr Aelodau yn y Siambr heddiw i gefnogi'r cynnig sydd ger eich bron, ac yn y pen draw i ganiatáu i heulwen tryloywder ddisgleirio ar yr adroddiad hwn fel rhagamod sylfaenol, fel y gallwn osod y cynsail ar gyfer adroddiadau pellach y gwyddom y byddant yn dod ger ein bron pan fydd adroddiadau Cwnsler y Frenhines a James Hamilton wedi'u cyflwyno. Dyna pam rwy'n annog y Siambr i gefnogi'r cynnig sydd ger eich bron.