English: I realise that what I'm about to say is going to fall on deaf ears, but I will make my speech in any event. It's not related to the individual who is the subject of this report. These are general considerations about the way that the Standards of Conduct Committee is operating in order to give effect to the dignity and respect policy and the Standing Orders of this Assembly. I'm concerned first of all at the admissibility of these complaints, because there were complaints made some time ago to Sir Roderick Evans, our standards commissioner, which he dismissed in a letter to Gareth Bennett of 3 October, which is published with the report. Sir Roderick says that 'I concluded that complaints that the video' - which was being complained of - 'was sexist and misogynistic were not made out.' Subsequently, several other complaints were made by other Members of the Assembly asking Sir Roderick to review his decision. There is of course no provision that would permit that under the existing rules. So, therefore, Sir Roderick decided that he would not be able to hear these new complaints, as a result of which Mr Bain was appointed to act in his place. Mr Bain then concluded that the new complaints were admissible, notwithstanding the fact that identical complaints had already been dismissed. Now, it is a serious matter when we expose Members of this place to double jeopardy, as it would be of any citizen in the United Kingdom. In a court of law, where a matter is functus officio, being the official legal term for this in a court of law, no such complaint could be entertained, yet we are allowing double jeopardy in this place for complaints to be made ad nauseam, possibly, against individual Members. I believe that that in principle is wrong. Mr Bain, in paragraph 6.1 of his report - excuse me - says that -
Welsh: Rwy'n sylweddoli bod yr hyn rwyf am ei ddweud yn mynd i syrthio ar glustiau byddar, ond fe wnaf fy araith beth bynnag. Nid yw'n ymwneud â'r unigolyn sy'n destun yr adroddiad hwn. Mae'r rhain yn ystyriaethau cyffredinol ynghylch y ffordd y mae'r Pwyllgor Safonau Ymddygiad yn gweithredu er mwyn rhoi effaith i'r polisi urddas a pharch a Rheolau Sefydlog y Cynulliad hwn. Rwy'n pryderu yn gyntaf oll ynglŷn ag i ba raddau y mae'r cwynion hyn yn dderbyniadwy, gan fod yna gwynion a wnaed gryn amser yn ôl i Syr Roderick Evans, ein comisiynydd safonau, a wrthodwyd ganddo mewn llythyr at Gareth Bennett ar 3 Hydref, ac a gyhoeddir gyda'r adroddiad. Dywed Syr Roderick Deuthum i'r casgliad nad oedd y cwynion fod y fideo - sef testun y gŵyn - yn rhywiaethol ac yn wreig-gasaol yn rhai dilys. Yn dilyn hynny, gwnaed sawl cwyn arall gan Aelodau Cynulliad eraill yn gofyn i Syr Roderick adolygu ei benderfyniad. Wrth gwrs, nid oes unrhyw ddarpariaeth a fyddai'n caniatáu hynny o dan y rheolau presennol. Felly, penderfynodd Syr Roderick na fyddai'n gallu clywed y cwynion newydd hyn, ac o ganlyniad, penodwyd Mr Bain i weithredu yn ei le. Casglodd Mr Bain wedyn fod modd derbyn y cwynion newydd, er gwaethaf y ffaith bod cwynion yn union yr un fath eisoes wedi'u diystyru. Nawr, mae'n fater difrifol pan fyddwn yn gwneud un o Aelodau'r lle hwn yn agored i erlyniad dwbl, fel y byddai i unrhyw ddinesydd yn y Deyrnas Unedig. Mewn llys barn, os yw mater yn functus officio, sef y term cyfreithiol swyddogol ar gyfer hyn mewn llys barn, ni ellid derbyn unrhyw gŵyn o'r fath, ac eto rydym yn caniatáu erlyniad dwbl yn y lle hwn ar gyfer gwneud cwynion hyd syrffed, o bosibl, yn erbyn Aelodau unigol. Credaf fod hynny'n anghywir o ran egwyddor. Mae Mr Bain, ym mharagraff 6.1 ei adroddiad - esgusodwch fi - yn dweud bod -