English: I wholly agree with everything that Mark Reckless has said. I believe that this motion raises fundamental questions of due process in the context of our standards committee and the way it works. This is a quasi-judicial body and it does have the power to impose sanctions that are both financial and of other kinds. It has the power to exclude from this Assembly to which we've all been elected by the people outside. These are very serious powers and therefore should be exercised with caution, and the procedures for the investigation of complaints, on the basis of which any sanction is applied, should be fair and should be relied upon by everybody who is a member of this place, equally, and individuals should not be singled out. Now, this motion applies only to one complaint against one Member. The commissioner has written to say that there is no provision in the procedure laid down by the Assembly for reconsideration of a complaint, either at the request of the original complainant or a third party. However, each of the requests that he has now received in relation to this specific matter contained a complaint about the video, and he has decided that each request should therefore be treated as a fresh complaint. Now, this is a reconsideration of a complaint that has already been considered, not on the basis of compelling new evidence, which the double jeopardy Act, brought in following the Lawrence inquiry, has provided for, for example, DNA evidence that was not available before. In those circumstances, one can well see that miscarriages of justice involving serious crimes like murder may call for a reconsideration on the basis of new evidence. There is no new evidence in this case. There is only the video, and it's a matter of subjective opinion what one thinks of it. I haven't seen the video either, although I have myself been the subject of such a video - [ Interruption.] I have myself been the subject of such a video on YouTube, where my head was put in place of Miley Cyrus's in 'Wrecking Ball'. I laughed that off; I certainly wouldn't regard that as a serious criticism worthy of consideration by the standards committee. I do believe that double jeopardy is a serious matter. The United Kingdom is signed up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14.7 of which says: 'No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.' If this motion passes this afternoon, it is flatly in contradiction of Britain's obligations under that specific provision. And I see a fellow lawyer laughing at this, which I'm very surprised at, actually, because he could well find himself in a similar position in future. If we are to say that, regardless of the commissioner's decision, further complaints that are identical in form can be considered and reconsidered ad infinitum, then there is no end to this process. One of the main reasons for supporting the double jeopardy rule -
Welsh: Cytunaf yn llwyr gyda phopeth a ddywedodd Mark Reckless. Credaf fod y cynnig hwn yn codi cwestiynau sylfaenol am y broses briodol yng nghyd-destun ein pwyllgor safonau a'r ffordd y mae'n gweithio. Mae hwn yn gorff lled-farnwrol ac nid oes ganddo'r pŵer i osod cosbau ariannol na mathau eraill. Mae ganddo'r pŵer i wahardd o'r Cynulliad hwn yr ydym i gyd wedi ein hethol iddo gan y bobl y tu allan. Mae'r rhain yn bwerau difrifol iawn ac felly dylid eu harfer nhw gyda gofal, a dylai'r gweithdrefnau ar gyfer ymchwilio i gwynion, y sail y dylid defnyddio unrhyw gosb, fod yn deg a dylai pawb sy'n aelod o'r lle hwn ddibynnu arno, yn gyfartal, ac ni ddylid trin unigolion yn wahanol. Nawr, mae'r cynnig hwn yn berthnasol dim ond ar gyfer un gŵyn yn erbyn un Aelod. Mae'r comisiynydd wedi ysgrifennu i ddweud nad oes darpariaeth yn y weithdrefn a bennir gan y Cynulliad i ailystyried cwyn, naill ai ar gais yr achwynydd gwreiddiol neu drydydd parti. Fodd bynnag, roedd pob un o'r ceisiadau y mae ef bellach wedi eu derbyn ynglŷn â'r mater penodol hwn yn cynnwys cwyn am y fideo, ac mae wedi penderfynu, felly, y dylid trin pob cais fel cwyn ffres. Nawr, mae hyn yn ailystyriaeth o gŵyn a ystyriwyd eisoes, nid ar sail tystiolaeth newydd anorfod, y mae'r Ddeddf erlyniad dwbl, a gyflwynwyd yn dilyn ymchwiliad Lawrence, wedi ei darparu ar ei gyfer, er enghraifft, tystiolaeth DNA nad oedd ar gael yn flaenorol. Yn yr amgylchiadau hynny, gall rhywun weld yn iawn y gallai camweinyddu cyfiawnder sy'n cynnwys troseddau difrifol megis llofruddiaeth alw am ailystyriaeth ar sail tystiolaeth newydd. Nid oes unrhyw dystiolaeth newydd yn yr achos hwn. Dim ond y fideo sydd ar gael, a mater o farn oddrychol yw'r hyn y mae rhywun yn ei feddwl ohono. Nid wyf wedi gweld y fideo ychwaith, er fy mod i fy hun wedi bod yn destun fideo o'r fath - [ Torri ar draws.] Rwyf i fy hun wedi bod yn destun fideo o'r fath ar YouTube, lle rhoddwyd fy mhen yn lle pen Miley Cyrus yn 'Wrecking Ball' . Chwarddais ac anghofiais amdano; Yn sicr fyddwn i ddim yn ystyried hynny'n feirniadaeth ddifrifol sy'n haeddu ystyriaeth gan y pwyllgor safonau. Rwyf yn credu bod erlyniad dwbl yn fater difrifol. Mae'r Deyrnas Unedig wedi cydsynio i'r Cyfamod Rhyngwladol ar Hawliau Sifil a Gwleidyddol), ac mae erthygl 14.7 ohono'n dweud: Nid oes neb yn atebol i gael ei roi ar brawf na'i gosbi eto am drosedd y mae eisoes wedi ei ddyfarnu'n derfynol yn euog neu'n ddieuog yn unol â chyfraith a gweithdrefn gosb pob gwlad. Os caiff y cynnig hwn ei basio y prynhawn 'ma, bydd yn gwrth-ddweud rhwymedigaethau Prydain yn llwyr o dan y gofynion penodol hynny. A gwelaf gyd-gyfreithiwr yn chwerthin ar hyn, sy'n fy synnu'n fawr, a dweud y gwir, gan y gallai ganfod ei hun mewn sefyllfa debyg yn y dyfodol. Os ydym am ddweud, waeth beth yw penderfyniad y comisiynydd, y gall cwynion pellach sydd yr un fath o ran ffurf gael eu hystyried a'u hailystyried yn ddi-ben-draw, yna nid oes diwedd i'r broses. Un o'r prif resymau dros gefnogi'r rheol erlyniad dwbl -