English: Thank you for that response. It's quite hard to know where to start in relation to this issue - an internal report that is fundamentally flawed, and what a former consultant at ABMU said was created by middle-grade managers as a bolt-on to their day job. That, in itself, is a damning indictment of this report. You say today that it's an independent review. What I read in the written statement was that it was to be an assessment of this review. So, I would like clarification that it is going to be a truly independent review. And yesterday, the First Minister said, and I quote: 'It is absolutely crucial that the investigation is independent. It's not for me then to tell Healthcare Inspectorate Wales what they should and shouldn't do'. Yet, the outline of a limited remit is in your statement last week. So, I want to know, if this is the remit, will you commit to changing it? Because we need to look at the case as a whole, including the mistakes made by ABMU in the initial handling of allegations against Kris Wade: his employment, the failure to get a Criminal Records Bureau check, the failure to dismiss him, possible nepotism, and the very real possibility that if ABMU had acted sooner, the murder of Christine James might have been prevented. These are questions that we really need to get to grips with, as well as the potential conflict of interest that exists now with the interim chief executive of the health board. I want to understand as well, without being disrespectful, how did it take so long for you to give this to Healthcare Inspectorate Wales? I am led to understand that this report was ready in January, and we only had a written statement last week. Why did you decide on Healthcare Inspectorate Wales rather than an independent review, as has happened in other cases, so I can understand that process, and how will it happen so that people can give evidence to it, so that those who were allegedly asked to give evidence in the last internal investigation can give evidence and those who are directly affected by this scandal can be involved in the process? I met with the husband of Christine James, the lady who was murdered by Kris Wade, yesterday - Stuart James - and he had to put on the television and find out via the television that this report even existed. That is, frankly, unacceptable. We cannot have a situation where people have to watch the media for them to find out what's happening in relation to a person who has done something fundamentally awful to a member of his family. So, I'll finish with this, and he doesn't want to do any media interviews, but this is what he told me: 'It should be remembered that this murder has had significant life-changing effects, both upon Christine James's family, who are left behind, and also those individuals who are mistreated in the care environment where they should have been at their safest. It is not about numbers, cost, political prizes. It is about getting to the truth and ensuring that those responsible for the failings are brought to account and that they themselves understand what those failings are.' I plead with you, Cabinet Secretary: there are managers and people who have made decisions who are still in their roles or who have had payouts from that health board who simply should not have had them, based on the way that they've operated in this health board, and I will not, as far as I am an Assembly Member, let these people down. Victims have been let down. We have seen scandals in the past by care homes, by celebrities in the British system, and we cannot let this happen under our watch. So, please, please make sure that this independent inquiry works for the sake of all those involved.
Welsh: Diolch am yr ymateb hwnnw. Mae'n eithaf anodd gwybod ble i ddechrau mewn perthynas â'r mater hwn - adroddiad mewnol sy'n sylfaenol ddiffygiol, a'r hyn a grëwyd gan reolwyr graddfa ganol fel atodiad i'w gwaith bob dydd yn ôl cyn-ymgynghorydd o Brifysgol Abertawe Bro Morgannwg. Mae hynny, ynddo'i hun, yn gyhuddiad damniol o'r adroddiad hwn. Rydych yn dweud heddiw mai adolygiad annibynnol ydyw. Yr hyn a ddarllenais yn y datganiad ysgrifenedig oedd mai asesiad o'r adolygiad oedd hwn i fod. Felly, hoffwn gadarnhad y bydd yn adolygiad gwirioneddol annibynnol. A ddoe, dywedodd y Prif Weinidog, ac rwy'n dyfynnu: 'Mae'n hollbwysig bod yr ymchwiliad yn annibynnol. Nid fy lle i yw dweud wrth Arolygiaeth Gofal Iechyd Cymru beth y dylent ac na ddylent ei wneud'. Eto i gyd, roedd amlinelliad o gylch gwaith cyfyngedig yn eich datganiad yr wythnos ddiwethaf. Felly, rwy'n awyddus i wybod, os mai hwn yw'r cylch gwaith, a wnewch chi ymrwymo i'w newid? Oherwydd mae angen i ni edrych ar yr achos yn ei gyfanrwydd, gan gynnwys y camgymeriadau a wnaed gan Brifysgol Abertawe Bro Morgannwg yn y modd y cafodd yr honiadau yn erbyn Kris Wade eu trin ar y cychwyn: ei gyflogaeth, y methiant i gael gwiriad y Swyddfa Cofnodion Troseddol, y methiant i'w ddiswyddo, nepotistiaeth bosibl, a'r posibilrwydd real iawn, pe bai Prifysgol Abertawe Bro Morgannwg wedi gweithredu'n gynt, y gellid bod wedi atal llofruddiaeth Christine James. Mae'r rhain yn gwestiynau y mae gwir angen inni fynd i'r afael â hwy, yn ogystal â'r gwrthdaro buddiannau posibl sy'n bodoli yn awr gyda phrif weithredwr dros dro'r bwrdd iechyd. Rwyf eisiau deall hefyd, heb fod yn amharchus, sut y cymerodd gymaint o amser i chi roi hwn i Arolygiaeth Gofal Iechyd Cymru? Rwy'n deall bod yr adroddiad hwn yn barod ym mis Ionawr, ac ni chawsom ddatganiad ysgrifenedig tan wythnos diwethaf. Pam y dewisoch Arolygiaeth Gofal Iechyd Cymru yn hytrach nag adolygiad annibynnol fel sydd wedi digwydd mewn achosion eraill, er mwyn i mi allu deall y broses honno, a sut y bydd yn digwydd fel y gall pobl roi tystiolaeth iddo, er mwyn i'r rhai y gofynnwyd iddynt, yn ôl yr honiad, i roi tystiolaeth yn yr ymchwiliad mewnol diwethaf allu rhoi tystiolaeth ac er mwyn i'r rhai yr effeithiwyd arnynt yn uniongyrchol gan y sgandal fod yn rhan o'r broses? Cyfarfûm â gŵr Christine James, y wraig a lofruddiwyd gan Kris Wade, ddoe - Stuart James - a bu'n rhaid iddo ef ddarganfod drwy gyfrwng y teledu fod yr adroddiad hwn yn bodoli hyd yn oed. Mae hynny, a bod yn onest, yn annerbyniol. Ni allwn gael sefyllfa lle mae pobl yn gorfod gwylio'r cyfryngau er mwyn iddynt gael gwybod beth sy'n digwydd mewn perthynas ag unigolyn sydd wedi gwneud rhywbeth gwirioneddol ofnadwy i aelod o'u teulu. Felly, rwyf am orffen gyda hyn, ac nid yw ef am wneud unrhyw gyfweliadau ar y cyfryngau, ond dyma'r hyn a ddywedodd wrthyf: Dylid cofio bod y llofruddiaeth hon wedi cael effeithiau sylweddol sy'n newid bywydau, ar deulu Christine James a adawyd ar ôl, yn ogystal â'r unigolion sy'n cael eu cam-drin yn yr amgylchedd gofal lle y dylent fod fwyaf diogel. Nid yw'n ymwneud â niferoedd, costau, gwobrau gwleidyddol. Mae'n ymwneud â dod o hyd i'r gwirionedd a sicrhau bod y rhai sy'n gyfrifol am y methiannau yn cael eu dwyn i gyfrif a'u bod hwy eu hunain yn deall beth yw'r methiannau hynny. Rwy'n erfyn arnoch, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet: mae yna reolwyr a phobl sydd wedi gwneud penderfyniadau sy'n dal i fod yn eu swyddi neu sydd wedi cael taliadau gan y bwrdd iechyd hwnnw na ddylent fod wedi eu cael, yn syml iawn, yn seiliedig ar y ffordd y maent wedi gweithredu yn y bwrdd iechyd hwn, a thra bwyf yn Aelod Cynulliad, ni wnaf gam â'r bobl hyn. Mae dioddefwyr wedi cael cam. Rydym wedi gweld sgandalau yn y gorffennol yn ymwneud â chartrefi gofal, ag enwogion yn y system Brydeinig, ac ni allwn adael i hyn ddigwydd o dan ein goruchwyliaeth ni. Felly, os gwelwch yn dda, gwnewch yn siŵr fod yr ymchwiliad annibynnol hwn yn gweithio er mwyn pawb sy'n gysylltiedig ag ef.