English: Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to move the debate in the name of Paul Davies that's on the order paper this afternoon. And in particular, it's worth reflecting just very briefly on the events of yesterday - that we were faced with this debate not actually taking place. In particular, if I may draw the Assembly's attention to the letter that was sent to the Presiding Officer, in particular point three that stated that the Government believed that the Table Office and the Presiding Officer were acting unlawfully in accepting this motion. That was what was in the letter that was put forward. As I understand it, that was then subsequently leaked to the press, which is somewhat ironic, to say the least, that we're having a leak inquiry and here's a leaked letter, which I believe came from the Government, as I understand it, to the media. So, I wonder whether we'll have a Permanent Secretary inquiry into this particular leaked letter. But it is worth reflecting on that type of language that meets you on the first page - not 'thinks' it's illegal; it's actually telling the Presiding Officer that it 'is' illegal. That, by any stretch, is a very threatening and intimidating environment to try and create around a debate in the Assembly here. I want to focus on three areas, if I may. Over the last three months, the various arguments that the Government have put forward to try and stop this report being published in redacted form. The first came forward in January from the First Minister, when I questioned him in First Minister's questions, and that was about the privacy and confidentiality of witnesses who had given evidence to that inquiry - and I agree entirely. I agree entirely that that should be adhered to, and that is why, in the motion today, we have said that the report should be made available in a redacted form, to make sure that that confidentiality is provided and, above all, the security and safety of witnesses who feel they might have been threatened if their names came forward, although I'm a bit skeptical of where the threats might come from if those names came into the public. And I do regret that the First Minister, in his choice of language in First Minister's questions at that time, said, when he was responding to me, 'What he is asking the Permanent Secretary to do - because it's her decision - is to out those people, for the evidence to be made available and their names. Such a course, I have to say, would be both dishonourable and dishonest, and would bring the Welsh Government into disrepute.' I reject that. I flatly reject that, and I refer the Assembly to the Hamilton inquiry report that was made available, in particular clause 22 in the Hamilton inquiry report yesterday, which clearly showed how Hamilton went about the process of protecting the identity of witnesses in that report. So, that clearly answers the point that you can provide a report and protect witness identity where that witness identity has been provided.
Welsh: Diolch i chi, Lywydd, ac rwy'n croesawu'r cyfle i gynnig y ddadl sydd ar y papur trefn y prynhawn yma yn enw Paul Davies. Ac yn benodol, mae'n werth myfyrio'n fyr iawn ar ddigwyddiadau ddoe - ein bod wedi wynebu'r posibilrwydd na fyddai'r ddadl hon yn digwydd mewn gwirionedd. Yn benodol, os caf dynnu sylw'r Cynulliad at y llythyr a anfonwyd at y Llywydd, yn enwedig pwynt tri a nododd fod y Llywodraeth yn credu nad oedd y Swyddfa Gyflwyno a'r Llywydd yn gweithredu'n anghyfreithlon yn derbyn y cynnig hwn. Dyna oedd yn y llythyr a gyflwynwyd. Fel rwy'n deall, cafodd ei ddatgelu heb ganiatâd i'r wasg wedyn, sydd braidd yn eironig a dweud y lleiaf, ein bod yn cael ymchwiliad i ddatgelu heb ganiatâd a dyma lythyr wedi'i ddatgelu heb ganiatâd, y credaf iddo ddod o'r Llywodraeth, fel rwy'n deall, i'r cyfryngau. Felly, tybed a gawn ni ymchwiliad Ysgrifennydd Parhaol i'r llythyr penodol hwn a ddatgelwyd heb ganiatâd. Ond mae'n werth myfyrio ar y math o iaith a welwch ar y dudalen gyntaf - nid 'o'r farn' ei fod yn anghyfreithlon; mae'n dweud wrth y Llywydd ei 'fod yn' anghyfreithlon. Mae hynny, yn bendant, yn amgylchedd bygythiol iawn i fynd i geisio'i greu ynghylch dadl yma yn y Cynulliad. Hoffwn ganolbwyntio ar dri maes, os caf. Dros y tri mis diwethaf, y dadleuon amrywiol a gyflwynodd y Llywodraeth i geisio atal yr adroddiad hwn rhag cael ei gyhoeddi wedi'i olygu. Daeth y gyntaf ym mis Ionawr gan y Prif Weinidog, pan holais ef mewn cwestiynau i'r Prif Weinidog ynghylch preifatrwydd a chyfrinachedd tystion a oedd wedi rhoi tystiolaeth i'r ymchwiliad hwnnw - ac rwy'n cytuno'n llwyr. Rwy'n cytuno'n llwyr y dylid glynu wrth hynny, a dyna pam ein bod, yn y cynnig heddiw, wedi dweud y dylai'r adroddiad fod ar gael ar ffurf wedi'i golygu, i wneud yn siŵr fod y cyfrinachedd hwnnw'n cael ei sicrhau ac uwchlaw popeth, sicrwydd a diogelwch tystion sy'n teimlo y gallent gael eu bygwth pe bai eu henwau'n cael eu rhoi, er fy mod braidd yn amheus o ble y gallai'r bygythiadau ddod pe bai'r enwau hynny'n dod yn gyhoeddus. Ac rwy'n gresynu at y ffaith bod y Prif Weinidog wedi dweud, yn ei ddewis ef o iaith yn y cwestiynau i'r Prif Weinidog ar y pryd, pan oedd yn ymateb i mi, 'Yr hyn y mae e'n gofyn i'r Ysgrifennydd Parhaol ei wneud - oherwydd ei phenderfyniad hi yw hwn - yw datgelu pwy yw'r bobl hynny, i'r dystiolaeth gael ei rhoi ar gael a'u henwau. Byddai cam o'r fath, mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud, yn waradwyddus ac yn anonest, a byddai'n dwyn anfri ar Lywodraeth Cymru.' Rwy'n gwrthod hynny. Rwy'n gwrthod hynny'n llwyr, a chyfeiriaf y Cynulliad at adroddiad ymchwiliad Hamilton a ryddhawyd, yn arbennig cymal 22 yn adroddiad ymchwiliad Hamilton ddoe, a ddangosai'n glir sut yr aeth Hamilton ati i ddiogelu cyfrinachedd tystion yn yr adroddiad hwnnw. Felly, yn amlwg mae hynny'n ateb y pwynt y gallwch ddarparu adroddiad a diogelu cyfrinachedd tyst lle y darparwyd enw'r tyst.