English: I see the point you're making, but I have to say I don't agree with it. I think there are circumstances in which it clearly isn't appropriate to refer to an independent adviser and there are other circumstances in which it very clearly is appropriate and I think that's a judgment call myself. But I take your point and it's something we can consider as the system runs out. Sorry - . So, as I said, he would be looking to see, where appropriate, to call on the independent adviser or advisers. The Government as a whole supports the position that inappropriate behaviour, however and wherever it occurs, will not be tolerated. As I said, we have spoken long and hard in this Chamber on a number of occasions - around the gender review and the equality and human rights report that we received only recently - about being standard bearers for those kinds of conducts, and I certainly would like to add my voice to all of the calls that this place should be standard bearers for the right kinds of conduct. The First Minister, in the light of that, has carefully considered his response to recommendation 12, which would require the establishment of a protocol to refer complaints about Ministers to the office of the standards commissioner with the commissioner reporting to the relevant body. There is a comment within the report that the requirement under the ministerial code that states, 'Ministers must keep separate their roles as Minister and Assembly Member' is potentially confusing. This is not a view shared by the First Minister. The primary purpose of the clause is to ensure that a Minister avoids the potential for an actual or perceived conflict of interest if they are asked to make a decision within their portfolio that impacts directly on their own constituency. The code is designed to ensure that Ministers do not use Welsh Government facilities and resources for constituency or party political activities outside of the parameters set out elsewhere in the code. The rationale for the committee's conclusion that there is potential for confusion regarding Assembly Member and ministerial roles is not apparent. To involve the standards commissioner appointed by and accountable to the Assembly to investigate complaints about the behaviour of Ministers when clearly operating as a Minister rather than as an Assembly Member could in itself create the sort of ambiguity of accountability that the committee is actually seeking to avoid. The report rightly refers to the facility the First Minister has to refer any matter regarding ministerial behaviour to an independent adviser to investigate. Having only been asked to investigate and advise on one case, which was undertaken diligently and comprehensively by James Hamilton with a report culminating in a Plenary debate, it is difficult to understand the report's suggestion that public confidence would be improved if the standards commissioner undertook the role. Independent advice is just that, whether an independent adviser or the standards commissioner performs that role. The exception to this would be that, if a Minister were clearly acting in their capacity as an Assembly Member when the alleged misconduct occurred, the First Minister would under those circumstances consider it appropriate for the standards commissioner to handle the matter rather than it being dealt with under the ministerial code. Therefore, for these reasons, the Government is unable to accept the recommendation made by the committee, but I would like to end by asking you all across the Chamber for your support in promoting the culture of dignity and respect throughout this place, which has been so ably and properly referenced and which so many Members have spoken passionately about today. We do absolutely agree that we can all help change behaviours and culture and that we should do so by leading by example. Diolch, Llywydd.
Welsh: Rwy'n gweld y pwynt rydych yn ei wneud, ond rhaid imi ddweud nad wyf yn cytuno ag ef. Credaf fod yna amgylchiadau lle mae'n amlwg nad yw'n briodol atgyfeirio at gynghorydd annibynnol a cheir amgylchiadau eraill lle mae'n amlwg iawn yn briodol ac rwy'n credu bod hynny'n fater o farn fy hun. Ond rwy'n derbyn eich pwynt, ac mae'n rhywbeth y gallwn ei ystyried wrth i'r system weithredu. Mae'n ddrwg gennyf - . Felly, fel y dywedais, byddai'n edrych i weld, lle y bo'n briodol, lle i droi at gynghorydd neu gynghorwyr annibynnol. Mae'r Llywodraeth gyfan yn cefnogi'r safbwynt na fydd ymddygiad amhriodol, ym mha fodd bynnag a ble bynnag y mae'n digwydd, yn cael ei oddef. Fel y dywedais, rydym wedi siarad yn faith ac yn gadarn yn y Siambr hon ar sawl achlysur - ynglŷn â'r adolygiad rhywedd a'r adroddiad cydraddoldeb a hawliau dynol a gawsom yn ddiweddar - ynglŷn â chwifio'r faner dros y mathau hynny o ymddygiad, ac yn sicr rwy'n awyddus i ychwanegu fy llais at yr holl alwadau y dylai'r lle hwn fod yn chwifio'r faner dros y mathau cywir o ymddygiad. Yng ngoleuni hynny, mae'r Prif Weinidog wedi ystyried yn ofalus ei ymateb i argymhelliad 12, a fyddai'n galw am sefydlu protocol ar gyfer atgyfeirio cwynion am Weinidogion i swyddfa'r comisiynydd safonau gyda'r comisiynydd yn adrodd i'r corff perthnasol. Ceir sylw yn yr adroddiad fod y gofyniad yng nghod y Gweinidogion - 'Rhaid i'r Gweinidogion gadw eu rolau fel Gweinidogion a'u rolau fel Aelodau Cynulliad ar wahân' - yn gallu bod yn ddryslyd o bosibl. Nid yw'n farn a rennir gan y Prif Weinidog. Prif ddiben y cymal yw sicrhau bod Gweinidog yn osgoi'r posibilrwydd o wrthdaro buddiannau gwirioneddol neu ganfyddedig os gofynnir iddynt wneud penderfyniad o fewn eu portffolio sy'n effeithio'n uniongyrchol ar eu hetholaeth eu hunain. Lluniwyd y cod i sicrhau nad yw Gweinidogion yn defnyddio cyfleusterau ac adnoddau Llywodraeth Cymru ar gyfer gweithgareddau etholaeth neu blaid wleidyddol y tu allan i'r paramedrau a nodir mewn mannau eraill yn y cod. Nid yw'r sail resymegol ar gyfer casgliad y pwyllgor fod potensial am ddryswch mewn perthynas â rolau Aelodau Cynulliad a rolau Gweinidogion yn amlwg. Gallai cynnwys y comisiynydd safonau a benodwyd gan, ac sy'n atebol i'r Cynulliad i ymchwilio i gwynion ynglŷn ag ymddygiad Gweinidogion pan fyddant yn amlwg yn gweithredu fel Gweinidogion yn hytrach nag fel Aelodau Cynulliad ynddo'i hun greu'r math o amwysedd atebolrwydd y mae'r pwyllgor yn ceisio ei osgoi mewn gwirionedd. Mae'r adroddiad yn cyfeirio'n briodol at y cyfleuster sydd gan y Prif Weinidog i atgyfeirio unrhyw fater yn ymwneud ag ymddygiad Gweinidog at gynghorydd annibynnol i'w ymchwilio. Unwaith yn unig y gofynnwyd i gynghorydd ymchwilio a chynghori ar achos, a gwnaed hynny'n ddiwyd ac yn gynhwysfawr gan James Hamilton gydag adroddiad a arweiniodd at ddadl mewn cyfarfod llawn, ac mae'n anodd deall awgrym yr adroddiad y byddai hyder y cyhoedd yn gwella pe bai'r comisiynydd safonau'n ymgymryd â'r rôl. Dyna'n union yw cyngor annibynnol, pa un a yw'r rôl yn cael ei chyflawni gan gynghorydd annibynnol neu'r comisiynydd safonau. Yr eithriad i hyn fyddai pe bai Gweinidog yn amlwg yn gweithredu yn rhinwedd ei swydd fel Aelod Cynulliad pan ddigwyddodd y camymddygiad honedig, byddai'r Prif Weinidog yn yr amgylchiadau hynny yn ei hystyried hi'n briodol i'r comisiynydd safonau ymdrin â'r mater yn hytrach na'i fod yn cael ei drin o dan god y Gweinidogion. Felly, am y rhesymau hyn, nid yw'r Llywodraeth yn gallu derbyn yr argymhelliad a wnaed gan y pwyllgor, ond hoffwn orffen drwy ofyn i chi gyd ar draws y Siambr am eich cefnogaeth i hyrwyddo diwylliant o urddas a pharch drwy'r lle hwn, fel y nodwyd yn fedrus ac yn briodol ac y siaradwyd mor angerddol yn ei gylch gan gynifer o'r Aelodau heddiw. Rydym yn cytuno'n llwyr y gall pawb ohonom helpu i newid ymddygiad a diwylliant ac y dylem wneud hynny gan arwain drwy esiampl. Diolch, Lywydd.