English: Diolch, Llwydd. [ Interruption.] The Member has just walked in; perhaps he should do the job he's paid for and actually be in this Chamber from the very start if he wants to take part in this debate, rather than sitting there grumbling like some kind of embarrassing elderly relative. But let me take, first of all, what Gareth Bennett has said. All I can say to him is: the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is somebody who has extensive experience in the criminal justice system. He has extensive experience of nothing when it comes to the criminal justice system, particularly from the side of advocacy. A world of paranoia exists on that side of the Chamber. I'd hate to be inside their heads and their worlds, and I feel sorry for them. The devolution of the criminal justice system is a major undertaking. It cannot be done overnight, it can only be done over a very long period of time, and it would take a great deal of preparation. Let's be clear about that. This is not something that can happen overnight. But if we look at Wales, Wales sits in the only jurisdiction in the common law world where there are two Parliaments. It doesn't exist anywhere else. Every single time a law-making Parliament has been set up anywhere in the Commonwealth, jurisdiction has always followed. Northern Ireland is an example within the UK. This is not radical - this is something that's normal. The abnormal situation is the situation in Wales. This is the only Parliament in the common law world that does not have jurisdiction to enforce its own laws. It relies on another Government and its agencies to enforce the laws that are actually passed in this place. That cannot be right. We would not accept the European Court having complete jurisdiction on how to enforce laws passed in the UK - of course not - so why then is that not correct for Wales? It surely must be right that, in principle, where laws are passed by a Parliament, that Parliament should have the jurisdiction to enforce those laws. Otherwise there is a jaggedness to the system that cannot be corrected. If I turn to justice policy, the point's been well made about the lack of access to justice, and that is true. There's no way you can say the criminal justice system in England and Wales is fair, because it's not, and the report says that. It cannot be right that an individual member of the public is forced to go to trial to represent themselves and a professional prosecutor is up against them. Judges have told me this, that they are concerned about how they deal with a situation where they have somebody who is inexperienced compared to somebody who's experienced. Trials last a lot longer, because things have to be explained to people, because they're not familiar with the system. I heard what Mark Isherwood had to say. He made the case very convincingly, if I may say, for devolution of prisons and the probation service, because he said, 'Well, we don't need it devolved; there's already one system and it already works very well.' If that is the case, surely, if it's already working well in Wales as a national system, then the place for it to be governed from is this place, as the national Parliament of the people of Wales. And let's bear in mind as well, it's ridiculous that the people of Wales, who speak Welsh, have no right to have a trial in their own language. You cannot have a Welsh-speaking jury - it's not permitted. If could be done, but it's never been allowed. And that's another point that I think is worth us thinking about, that you do not have the right to a trial of your peers of a Welsh-speaking jury in Wales. And that's never been the case. And that must change. Turning to what Mark Isherwood said. Can I give you an assurance that if policing was devolved, it's not going to be the case that suddenly there's no co-operation across the border? Of course not. Nobody rational would argue that. And there will be some areas of crime that are so serious that there would have to be co-ordination across the UK and beyond, into Europe. That much is true. But to say that, because crime is cross-border, which is correct, therefore all our policing must be run from Whitehall, is a false argument. Because, if you look at Ireland, where the border is very similar to the border here - Newry and Dundalk are close to each other; Letterkenny and Derry are close to each other; Lifford and Strabane are across the river from each other. So, you do have people living very closely in towns very close to the border. Yet there is a good record of co-operation between An Garda Síochána and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It's not a problem. For some reason, it is a problem that apparently only exists between England and Wales, but isn't a problem anywhere else - not even within the UK, where, of course, Scotland has an independent police system. No-one's ever said, 'That creates a problem in terms of cross-border co-operation'. So, I find that argument difficult to accept. In practice, what does this mean? Well, it means, for example, obviously, that we would have control here of our justice system. It does not mean there'd be no co-operation; it does not mean we would build a justice wall between ourselves and England - of course not. You would not need separate professions. I think that's right; you could have professions that could regulate themselves and be cross-border. You would not necessarily need a separate court system. Lord Justice Thomas has said in the past that the idea of a distinct jurisdiction means that you can say, 'Okay, we'll share a court system and share the costs'. Because, at the moment, we don't pay anything towards the justice system, yet we produce laws here that create costs for the Ministry of Justice that they have to pick up every single time. Now, it's very convenient for us, but is that fair in the longer term? A properly shared jurisdiction would see responsibility shared between these two bodies, these two legislatures. I do see the time running out, Llywydd. And I'd simply say this: as I said before, the abnormal situation is what we have in Wales - a Parliament without a jurisdiction. The abnormal situation is what we have in England and Wales, where we have two Parliaments within the same jurisdiction. And I just make this last point to illustrate to Members what that might mean: the time is coming when it would be possible for someone to be arrested, tried and imprisoned in England for an offence that's not an offence in England, because it's one jurisdiction, and that clearly can't be right in the future, and it's time to make sure that we have better symmetry as far as devolution is concerned and certainly far better symmetry as far as the devolution of justice is concerned.
Welsh: Diolch, Llywydd. [ Torri ar draws.] Mae'r Aelod newydd gerdded i mewn; efallai y dylai ef wneud y gwaith y mae wedi'i dalu i'w wneud a bod yn y Siambr hon o'r cychwyn cyntaf os yw eisiau cymryd rhan yn y ddadl hon, yn hytrach nag eistedd yno'n achwyn fel rhyw fath o berthynas oedrannus sy'n achosi embaras. Ond gadewch imi gymryd, yn gyntaf oll, yr hyn y mae Gareth Bennett wedi'i ddweud. Y cyfan y gallaf ei ddweud wrtho yw hyn: mae Arglwydd Brif Ustus Cymru a Lloegr yw rhywun sydd â phrofiad helaeth yn y system cyfiawnder troseddol. Mae ganddo brofiad helaeth o ddim byd pan ddaw i'r system cyfiawnder troseddol, yn enwedig o ochr eiriolaeth. Mae byd o baranoia yn bodoli ar yr ochr honno i'r Siambr. Byddai'n gas gennyf i fod y tu mewn i'w pennau a'u bydoedd, ac rwy'n teimlo trueni drostyn nhw. Mae datganoli'r system cyfiawnder troseddol yn fenter enfawr. Nid yw'n bosibl ei wneud dros nos, dim ond dros gyfnod hir iawn y mae modd gwneud hynny, a byddai'n cymryd llawer iawn o waith paratoi. Gadewch inni fod yn glir am hynny. Nid yw hyn yn rhywbeth a all ddigwydd dros nos. Ond os edrychwn ni ar Gymru, Cymru yw'r unig awdurdodaeth ym myd y gyfraith gyffredin lle mae yna ddwy Senedd. Nid yw'n bodoli yn unman arall. Bob tro y mae Senedd sy'n creu'r gyfraith wedi'i sefydlu yn unrhyw le yn y Gymanwlad, mae awdurdodaeth wedi dilyn bob amser. Mae Gogledd Iwerddon yn enghraifft o hyn yn y DU. Nid yw hyn yn radical - mae'n normal. Y sefyllfa annormal yw'r sefyllfa yng Nghymru. Dyma'r unig Senedd ym myd y gyfraith gyffredin nad oes ganddi awdurdodaeth i orfodi ei chyfreithiau ei hun. Mae'n dibynnu ar Lywodraeth arall a'i hasiantaethau i orfodi'r cyfreithiau a gaiff eu pasio yn y lle hwn mewn gwirionedd. Ni all hynny fod yn iawn. Ni fyddem yn derbyn bod gan Lys Ewrop awdurdodaeth lwyr ar sut i orfodi cyfreithiau a gaiff eu pasio yn y DU - wrth gwrs na fyddem - felly pam nad yw hynny'n iawn i Gymru? Mae'n rhaid ei bod yn iawn, mewn egwyddor, pan fydd cyfreithiau'n cael eu pasio gan Senedd, y dylai'r Senedd gael awdurdodaeth i orfodi'r cyfreithiau hynny. Fel arall, mae yna ryw ansawdd garw yn y system na ellir ei gywiro. Os trof at bolisi cyfiawnder, cafodd y pwynt ei wneud yn dda ynghylch y diffyg cyfle i fynd at Gyfiawnder, ac mae hynny'n wir. Ni allwch ddweud bod y system cyfiawnder troseddol yng Nghymru a Lloegr yn deg, oherwydd nid yw hynny'n wir, ac mae'r adroddiad yn dweud hynny. Ni all fod yn iawn fod aelod unigol o'r cyhoedd yn cael ei orfodi i fynd i dreial i gynrychioli ei hun ac mae erlynydd proffesiynol yn ei erbyn. Mae barnwyr wedi dweud hyn wrthyf, eu bod yn pryderu ynghylch sut y maen nhw'n ymdrin â sefyllfa lle mae ganddyn nhw rywun sy'n ddibrofiad o'i gymharu â rhywun sy'n brofiadol. Mae treialon yn para'n hwy o lawer, oherwydd mae'n rhaid egluro pethau wrth bobl, oherwydd nid ydyn nhw'n gyfarwydd â'r system. Clywais i'r hyn a ddywedodd Mark Isherwood. Cyflwynodd yr achos yn gryf iawn, os caf i ddweud, dros ddatganoli carchardai a'r gwasanaeth prawf, oherwydd dywedodd, 'Wel, nid oes angen datganoli arnom; mae yna un system yn barod ac mae eisoes yn gweithio'n dda iawn.' Os yw hynny'n wir, os yw eisoes yn gweithio'n dda yng Nghymru fel system genedlaethol, yna siawns mai'r lle i'w llywodraethu yw'r lle hwn, fel Senedd genedlaethol pobl Cymru. A gadewch inni gadw mewn cof hefyd, mae'n wirion nad oes gan bobl Cymru, sy'n siarad Cymraeg, unrhyw hawl i gael treial yn eu hiaith eu hunain. Ni allwch gael rheithgor Cymraeg - nid yw'n cael ei ganiatáu. Byddai'n bosibl ei wneud, ond nid yw wedi'i ganiatáu, byth. Ac mae hwnnw'n bwynt arall y credaf i sy'n werth inni feddwl amdano, nad oes gennych yr hawl i dreial o'ch cymheiriaid ar reithgor Cymraeg yng Nghymru. Ac nid yw hynny erioed wedi bodoli. A rhaid i hynny newid. Gan droi at yr hyn a ddywedodd Mark Isherwood. A gaf i eich sicrhau, os caiff plismona ei ddatganoli, ni fydd yn fater o ddiffyg cydweithrediad sydyn ar draws y ffin? Wrth gwrs na fydd. Ni fyddai neb rhesymegol yn dadlau hynny. A bydd rhai meysydd o droseddu sydd mor ddifrifol fel y byddai'n rhaid cydgysylltu ar draws y DU a thu hwnt, i Ewrop. Mae hynny'n wir. Ond mae dweud, oherwydd bod troseddu'n drawsffiniol, sy'n gywir, yna mae'n rhaid cynnal ein holl blismona o Whitehall yn ddadl ffug. Oherwydd, os ystyriwch chi'r Iwerddon, lle mae'r ffin yn debyg iawn i'r ffin yma - mae Newry a Dundalk yn agos at ei gilydd; mae Letterkenny a Derry yn agos at ei gilydd; mae Lifford a Strabane ar draws yr afon oddi wrth ei gilydd. Felly, mae gennych chi bobl yn byw yn agos iawn mewn trefi sy'n agos iawn at y ffin. Eto i gyd mae cofnod da o gydweithrediad rhwng Garda Síochána a gwasanaeth heddlu Gogledd Iwerddon. Nid yw'n broblem. Am ryw reswm, mae'n ymddangos mai dim ond rhwng Cymru a Lloegr y mae'n broblem, ond nid yw'n broblem yn unman arall - hyd yn oed o fewn y DU, lle mae gan yr Alban system heddlu annibynnol, wrth gwrs. Nid oes neb erioed wedi dweud, 'Mae hynny'n creu problem o ran cydweithredu ar draws ffiniau.' Felly, rwyf yn ei chael hi'n anodd derbyn y ddadl honno. Yn ymarferol, beth mae hyn yn ei olygu? Wel, mae'n golygu, er enghraifft, yn amlwg, y byddai gennym ni reolaeth yma o'n system gyfiawnder. Nid yw'n golygu na fyddai unrhyw gydweithrediad; nid yw'n golygu y byddem ni'n adeiladu wal gyfiawnder rhyngom ni a Lloegr - wrth gwrs na fyddem. Ni fyddai angen proffesiynau ar wahân arnoch chi. Rwy'n credu bod hynny'n iawn; gallech gael proffesiynau a allai reoleiddio'u hunain a bod yn drawsffiniol. Ni fyddai angen system llysoedd ar wahân arnoch chi o anghenraid. Mae'r Arglwydd Ustus Thomas wedi dweud yn y gorffennol fod y syniad o awdurdodaeth bendant yn golygu y gallwch chi ddweud, 'Iawn, byddwn ni'n rhannu system llysoedd ac yn rhannu'r costau.' Oherwydd, ar hyn o bryd, nid ydym yn talu unrhyw beth tuag at y system gyfiawnder, ac eto rydym ni'n cynhyrchu Deddfau yma sy'n creu costau i'r Weinyddiaeth Gyfiawnder y mae'n rhaid iddyn nhw eu codi bob tro. Nawr, mae'n gyfleus iawn i ni, ond a yw hynny'n deg yn y tymor hwy? Byddai awdurdodaeth wedi'i rhannu'n briodol yn gweld rhannu cyfrifoldeb rhwng y ddau gorff hyn, y ddwy ddeddfwrfa hyn. Rwy'n gweld yr amser yn mynd yn brin, Llywydd. A byddwn i ond yn dweud hyn: fel y dywedais o'r blaen, y sefyllfa annormal sydd gennym ni yng Nghymru - Senedd heb awdurdodaeth. Y sefyllfa annormal yw'r hyn sydd gennym ni yng Nghymru a Lloegr, lle mae gennym ni ddwy Senedd o fewn yr un awdurdodaeth. Rwy'n gwneud y pwynt olaf hwn er mwyn dangos i'r Aelodau beth y gallai hynny ei olygu: mae'r amser yn dod pan fyddai'n bosibl i rywun gael ei arestio, ei roi ar brawf a'i garcharu yn Lloegr am drosedd nad yw'n drosedd yn Lloegr, gan mai un awdurdodaeth ydyw. Ac mae'n amlwg na all hynny fod yn iawn yn y dyfodol, ac mae'n amser gwneud yn siŵr bod gennym ni well cymesuredd o ran datganoli ac yn sicr gymesuredd llawer gwell cyn belled ag y mae datganoli cyfiawnder yn y cwestiwn.