English: It's been a deeply upsetting week for anyone who has read or been involved with the royal college's review of maternity services in Cwm Taf. The testimonies of the mothers whose babies died cannot but move any of us, and the way they've been treated is enough to make anyone angry. Now, I asked the question last week about whether this would have happened in another area - say, for example, a hospital service in a wealthier catchment area, where the patients would be more likely to be middle class. Would we see a report highlighting dismissive attitudes and a failure to apologise, and responses that were formulaic and seemed to be more interested in defending the reputation of individuals and the health board in a wealthier area? I very much doubt it. And this isn't a controversial point; it forms part of the inverse care law that the Minister himself has acknowledged in plenty of other circumstances. The dismissive tone in which these concerns were dismissed by the Minister last week doesn't inspire confidence in me that things will be put right. After all, the crux of the problem here is that people, mainly working-class women, have been dismissed, and here was the health Minister doing that all over again. But holding the Minister to account does not mean that those responsible at the health board should also not be held to account - of course they should - and right up until last week, there were questions over their actions. In October last year, before the external review was commissioned, a Cwm Taf spokesperson told the media that their internal review was a routine exercise about whether things should be done differently. At the very same time, the health board were in possession of an internal report that said that things were far worse. Where is the transparency here? Hiding that report was misleading us: evidence that the board is more interested in defending its reputation than correcting the problems within the service. It remains a grave injustice, in my view, that doctors, nurses and midwives can be struck off and face criminal investigation - rightly, of course - for failures in patient care, whereas not a single manager, to our knowledge, has ever faced equivalent sanctions. That is not right and it's symptomatic of the class-based culture that infects public life. The chief executives of our health boards are paid substantially more than the First Minister, and they face no equivalent accountability, whereas we all know, if a low-paid or a low-grade worker did something of even a quarter of this magnitude in their workplace, there would be a very, very different result. The Minister himself has not acknowledged that he runs the health service in Wales. He is responsible; the buck is meant to stop with him, but to date, this has meant very little. But here today, at least, we can send a message that Ministers can be struck off. This is, after all, an issue of more magnitude than recent sackings in Westminster. Liam Fox resigned for inviting an ex-special adviser abroad to meetings. Amber Rudd misled a committee, and Gavin Williamson allegedly leaked confidential information. Now, I would argue that service failures that led to that damning report last week are much more serious than the matters that those Westminster Ministers resigned over. Let's contrast the behaviour of the health Minister here over the past week with that of the former health minister in Tunisia. In March of this year, 11 babies tragically died in a hospital in Tunis, following an infection outbreak attributed to poor practices on the ward. The health minister in Tunisia looked at his conscience, took responsibility and resigned, despite only having been in the post for four months. It's time that we applied those standards of accountability and responsibility here. I think it definitely is.
Welsh: Mae wedi bod yn wythnos drist iawn i unrhyw un sydd wedi darllen neu wedi bod yn rhan o adolygiad y coleg brenhinol o wasanaethau mamolaeth yng Nghwm Taf. Mae tystiolaethau'r mamau y bu eu babanod farw yn cyffwrdd â phob un ohonom, ac mae'r ffordd y cawsant eu trin yn ddigon i wneud unrhyw un yn ddig. Nawr, gofynnais y cwestiwn yr wythnos diwethaf ynglŷn ag a fyddai hyn wedi digwydd mewn ardal arall - er enghraifft, gwasanaeth ysbyty mewn dalgylch cyfoethocach, dyweder, lle byddai'r cleifion yn fwy tebygol o fod yn perthyn i'r dosbarth canol. A fyddem yn gweld adroddiad yn amlygu agweddau diystyriol a methiant i ymddiheuro, ac ymatebion a oedd yn fformiwläig ac a oedd i'w gweld â mwy o ddiddordeb mewn amddiffyn enw da unigolion a'r bwrdd iechyd mewn ardal gyfoethocach? Rwy'n amau hynny'n fawr. Ac nid pwynt dadleugar yw hwn; mae'n ffurfio rhan o'r ddeddf gofal gwrthgyfartal y mae'r Gweinidog ei hun wedi'i chydnabod mewn digon o amgylchiadau eraill. Nid yw'r oslef ddiystyriol a ddefnyddiodd y Gweinidog i ddiystyru'r pryderon hyn yr wythnos diwethaf yn ennyn hyder ynof y caiff pethau eu hunioni. Wedi'r cyfan, craidd y broblem yma yw bod pobl, menywod dosbarth gweithiol yn bennaf, wedi cael eu diystyru, a dyma'r Gweinidog iechyd yn gwneud hynny wedyn. Ond nid yw dwyn y Gweinidog i gyfrif yn golygu na ddylai'r rhai sy'n gyfrifol yn y bwrdd iechyd gael eu dwyn i gyfrif hefyd - wrth gwrs y dylent - a hyd at yr wythnos diwethaf, roedd cwestiynau'n codi ynglŷn â'u gweithredoedd. Ym mis Hydref y llynedd, cyn comisiynu'r adolygiad allanol, dywedodd llefarydd ar ran Cwm Taf wrth y cyfryngau fod eu hadolygiad mewnol yn ymarfer rheolaidd ynglŷn ag a ddylid gwneud pethau'n wahanol. Ar yr un pryd, roedd gan y bwrdd iechyd adroddiad mewnol yn ei feddiant a oedd yn dweud bod pethau'n llawer gwaeth. Ble mae'r tryloywder yma? Roedd cuddio'r adroddiad hwnnw yn ein camarwain: tystiolaeth fod gan y bwrdd fwy o ddiddordeb mewn amddiffyn ei enw da na chywiro'r problemau o fewn y gwasanaeth. Mae'n dal i fod yn anghyfiawnder difrifol, yn fy marn i, y gellir diswyddo meddygon, nyrsys a bydwragedd ac y gallant wynebu ymchwiliadau troseddol - yn briodol, wrth gwrs - am fethiannau ym maes gofal cleifion, ond nid oes yr un rheolwr hyd y gwyddom wedi wynebu sancsiynau cyfatebol erioed. Nid yw hynny'n iawn ac mae'n nodweddiadol o'r diwylliant seiliedig ar ddosbarth sy'n heintio bywyd cyhoeddus. Mae prif weithredwyr ein byrddau iechyd yn cael llawer mwy o gyflog na'r Prif Weinidog, ac nid ydynt yn wynebu atebolrwydd cyfatebol, er bod pawb ohonom yn gwybod, pe bai gweithiwr ar gyflog isel neu ar raddfa isel yn gwneud rhywbeth a fyddai chwarter mor ddifrifol yn eu gweithle, byddent yn wynebu canlyniad hollol wahanol. Nid yw'r Gweinidog ei hun wedi cydnabod mai ef sy'n rhedeg y gwasanaeth iechyd yng Nghymru. Ef sy'n gyfrifol; mae'r cyfrifoldeb i fod arno ef, ond hyd yma, nid yw hyn wedi golygu fawr ddim. Ond yma heddiw, gallwn o leiaf anfon neges y gellir diswyddo Gweinidogion. Wedi'r cyfan, mae hwn yn fater mwy o faint na'r diswyddiadau diweddar yn San Steffan. Ymddiswyddodd Liam Fox am wahodd cyn gynghorydd arbennig dramor i gyfarfodydd. Fe wnaeth Amber Rudd gamarwain pwyllgor, a'r honiad yw bod Gavin Williamson wedi datgelu gwybodaeth gyfrinachol. Nawr, buaswn yn dadlau bod methiannau gwasanaethau a arweiniodd at yr adroddiad damniol hwn yr wythnos diwethaf yn llawer mwy difrifol na'r materion a arweiniodd at ymddiswyddiad y Gweinidogion yn San Steffan. Beth am gyferbynnu ymddygiad y Gweinidog iechyd yma dros yr wythnos ddiwethaf â'r gweinidog iechyd blaenorol yn Tunisia. Ym mis Mawrth eleni, bu farw 11 o fabanod yn drasig mewn ysbyty yn Tunis, yn dilyn achosion o haint a briodolwyd i arferion gwael ar y ward. Gweithredodd y gweinidog iechyd yn Tunisia yn ôl ei gydwybod, cymerodd gyfrifoldeb ac ymddiswyddodd, er mai dim ond ers pedwar mis y bu yn y swydd. Rwy'n bendant iawn ei bod hi'n bryd i ni arfer yr un safonau o atebolrwydd a chyfrifoldeb yma.