Thank you. There are similar shortages, obviously, with endoscopy nurses. I did want to just touch on Caroline Jones's amendment, because we will be abstaining on it. Not because we don't support it, because we absolutely do, but the fundamental issue that we have with access to primary care services is that everything that this Government has done - the parliamentary review, the vision for health - is predicated on us taking our potential patients and seeing them at home, in the community, before they go anywhere else and do anything else. And primary care, I suspect from the numbers that I'm running, needs substantially more than 10 per cent in order to be able to meet the ambitions that we've all cleaved to as parties across this place on the parliamentary review to try to move that emphasis away from hospitals and into - [ Inaudible.] So, it's a good amendment, but we can't support it because you put a number to it.

Diolch. Ceir prinder tebyg, yn amlwg, gyda nyrsys endosgopi. Roeddwn am sôn am welliant Caroline Jones, oherwydd byddwn yn ymatal arno. Nid am nad ydym yn ei gefnogi, oherwydd rydym yn bendant yn ei gefnogi, ond y broblem sylfaenol sydd gennym o ran mynediad at wasanaethau gofal sylfaenol yw fod popeth y mae'r Llywodraeth hon wedi'i wneud - yr adolygiad seneddol, y weledigaeth ar gyfer iechyd - wedi'i seilio arnom ni'n gweld ein cleifion posibl yn y cartref, yn y gymuned, cyn iddynt fynd i unrhyw le arall a gwneud unrhyw beth arall. Ac rwy'n tybio o'r niferoedd rwy'n eu cyfrif fod angen cryn dipyn yn fwy na 10 y cant ar ofal sylfaenol er mwyn gallu cyflawni'r uchelgeisiau y mae pawb ohonom yn glynu wrthynt fel pleidiau ar draws y lle hwn ar yr adolygiad seneddol i geisio symud y pwyslais hwnnw oddi wrth yr ysbytai a thuag at - [ Anghlywadwy.] Felly, mae'n welliant da, ond ni allwn ei gefnogi am eich bod yn rhoi rhif iddo.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, we have discussed previously the case of my constituent, Paul Davies, the Paralympian who was facing the real prospect of missing Tokyo 2020 due to a lack of social care. Minister, with your help, I'm pleased to say that Paul Davies now has the support he needs in order to train for the Tokyo Paralympics. So, Minister, will you join me in wishing Paul Davies every success in his endeavours and in hoping that he can bring back a gold medal for Wales?

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Weinidog, rydym eisoes wedi trafod achos fy etholwr, Paul Davies, y Paralympiad a oedd yn wynebu'r posibilrwydd o fethu Tokyo 2020 oherwydd diffyg gofal cymdeithasol. Weinidog, gyda'ch cymorth chi, rwy'n falch o ddweud bellach fod gan Paul Davies y gefnogaeth sydd ei hangen arno er mwyn hyfforddi ar gyfer Gemau Paralympaidd Tokyo. Felly, Weinidog, a wnewch chi ymuno â mi i ddymuno pob lwc i Paul Davies gyda'i ymdrechion a gobeithio y gall ddod â medal aur yn ôl i Gymru?

Following extensive engagement with stakeholders, our response to this consultation has been sent to the Ministry of Justice and published on our website. We've made it clear we are fundamentally opposed to the proposal to replace the current Human Rights Act with a bill of rights.

Ar ôl ymgysylltu'n helaeth â rhanddeiliaid, anfonwyd ein hymateb i'r ymgynghoriad hwn at y Weinyddiaeth Gyfiawnder a'i gyhoeddi ar ein gwefan. Rydym wedi dweud yn glir ein bod yn gwrthwynebu'n sylfaenol y cynnig i ddisodli'r Ddeddf Hawliau Dynol bresennol gan fil hawliau.

As someone who's looking at this from a distance, is it unfair to characterise the role as one that either tells people to go to a judicial review or to go to the Minister saying that the law isn't suitable? Is that what it is, in all purposes?

Fel rhywun sy'n edrych o bell, ydy e'n annheg i characterise - o 'r rôl fel un sydd naill ai'n dweud wrth bobl i fynd i adolygiad barnwrol neu i fynd i'r Gweinidog yn dweud dyw'r gyfraith ddim yn addas yn yr achos yna? A dyna beth yw e i bob pwrpas, onid yw e?