English: Can I thank the First Minister for bringing this statement today, and still more if I may thank Lord Thomas and all his fellow commissioners for bringing forth this very impressive report? I'd also like to congratulate the previous First Minister for what is a very impressive report that he set up for us. I would like to actually follow what the First Minister said that this report deserves far fuller consideration than it can be given today. I had previously planned perhaps to give a more definitive response to it, but I think it is right to hold back to absorb it further and to consult more widely. I think that what he said about his approach to responding to it is sensible, and I really look forward to having that full debate and contributing more fully on some of the issues there. What I might just say in terms of one point of principle is that the commission refers to the 'jagged saw', which although more prosaic in this context was described in the statement by the First Minister as the 'practical challenges which flow from the division of responsibilities between Westminster and Wales.' And I noted that when the leader of opposition was giving his response, there was quite a lot of heckling of him that he was anti-devolution. I just think that some of us, inevitably, whatever the division of devolved and non-devolved, there will always be something of a jagged saw; there will always be some difficulty at that level where the two different polities are meeting. But it just takes it as a given, this report, that wherever that's the case - for example, in justice - the solution must always be devolving to Wales, and some of us have just become concerned that if devolution is always that one-way street of continued and further devolution always and everywhere of greater and greater powers, that that may not be what the people of Wales want to see, and also that it will put at risk the very substantial flow of financial resources that Wales receives from England in a circumstance where we have a £13.7 billion fiscal gap. I just think that point needs to be kept in mind. Also, if I may, take up Rhun's point, which I thought was a very good one. He quoted a book called The Secret Barrister, which I've also read, and I found really quite shocking in terms of the state of the courts system in England and Wales. When I was a Member of Parliament in England I saw some of this, but, frankly, it has got a lot worse since then, and the reduction in spending on the justice system has been almost higher than any other area of Government activity, and the implications are absolutely horrendous. I think what this report does, it doesn't just tell us about Wales; it tells us about the justice system in England and Wales, and, frankly, it's not just useful for us but it should be useful for the UK Government and the UK Parliament. If the Conservatives are not convinced of the overall thrust of it, I hope they will use this report to show what is happening to an area of England and Wales that has had this extraordinary effort and talented minds and work pointing out what the problems are. I hope this will be read more widely than Wales, and a lot of these problems are down to the UK Government at an England and Wales level, and they do need to be tackled. Could I welcome some of the specifics that the First Minister has given today, specifically the schemes for apprenticeships in the legal profession and Welsh Government support for that? I think that is a good idea; I welcome that. I think initially perhaps we should concentrate on a pilot of the scheme for that, and I would just draw the First Minister's attention to chartered legal executives and the background and the positive impact they have on the law. Perhaps given how their qualification and support system works, it could be a good area for initial engagement and thinking how Welsh Government can help that go further. In terms of some of the other areas, the law council of Wales, the legal innovation lab at Swansea University, the justice committee in the Cabinet, if I may borrow a phrase from Welsh Government, I think those are things that we would support in principle. One substantive point I just want to make - and I will be interested in the First Minister's response - about the report on a more technical level is in the area of appointment to the Supreme Court. I'm just disappointed by the approach and the evidence base in the report on this because it is something that we discussed a few weeks ago in the Chamber and I agree with the substantive recommendation that the report makes that the Supreme Court must have a judge with knowledge and experience of practice in Welsh law, but also of the scheme of devolution for Wales and Wales as a distinct part of the United Kingdom. I think that's right and I think it should be implemented regardless of what happens in respect of other recommendations, but the report says that they recommend putting Wales 'in a similar position to Scotland and Northern Ireland in the Supreme Court as regards the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court.' Unfortunately, what they propose is insufficient to do that, and the reason, I fear, is that the justice commission has misdescribed how judges are currently appointed to the Supreme Court. In paragraph 2.90, they say, 'Appointments to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court are made on the recommendation of Commissions on which Commissioners from the Judicial Appointments Commission form the majority.' Now, that is correct in terms of the Court of Appeal, but it is not correct for the Supreme Court and the reference to 'the Judicial Appointments Commission' is unhelpful given the focus on devolution and the nature of the Supreme Court. To look at the Supreme Court's own statement on its website about the procedure for appointing a justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, it refers to a panel of five, the President of the Supreme Court, and then she nominates a senior judge from anywhere in the United Kingdom but that judge cannot be a justice at the Supreme Court, and then, in addition, there is a member of each of the judicial appointments commission for England and Wales, the judicial appointments board in Scotland, and the judicial appointments commissioner in Northern Ireland. At least one of those representatives has to be a layperson. Nominations are made by the chairman of the relevant commission or board. So, we do have in the report a recognition that a separate judiciary will require an independent method of judicial appointment and a later reference to an appointments system, but I think we need to understand, particularly if we're to have parity in the Supreme Court appointments, the implication of having our own separate judicial appointments commission, or something at least that the Supreme Court would recognise as equivalent to allow us to have that equivalent role of the other jurisdictions. And I think that also goes to the issue of, 'Is it really realistic to have just 10 extra people?' I know the previous Lord Chief Justice had a review of justice and managed to do that with 10, but I agree with the First Minister, that's not realistic for Government. And I just wonder if some consideration could be given to this because we really deserve better treatment at the Supreme Court than just Scotland having one of five, Northern Ireland having one of five, and then there's another one of the five that's England and Wales. If we were to go down the route of this separation, that would become a judicial appointments commission for England, and there's nothing in the report that would ensure that we're treated equally and fairly in terms of the appointments process for the Supreme Court. So, I'd just like to put that there and ask Welsh Government, at least, to respond, given that misconception.
Welsh: A gaf i ddiolch i'r Prif Weinidog am ddod â'r datganiad hwn gerbron heddiw, ac yn fwy byth os caf i ddiolch i Arglwydd Thomas a'i gyd-gomisiynwyr am gyflwyno'r adroddiad hynod drawiadol hwn? Hoffwn i longyfarch y cyn-Brif Weinidog hefyd am yr adroddiad trawiadol iawn hwn a sefydlodd ar ein cyfer. Hoffwn i ddilyn yr hyn a ddywedodd y Prif Weinidog sef bod yr adroddiad hwn yn haeddu ystyriaeth lawnach o lawer nag y gellir ei rhoi heddiw. Roeddwn wedi cynllunio ymlaen llaw i roi ymateb mwy pendant efallai, ond rwy'n credu mai'r peth iawn yw ymatal er mwyn ei ystyried ymhellach ac ymgynghori'n ehangach. Rwy'n credu bod yr hyn a ddywedodd ef am ei ddull o ymateb i'r adroddiad yn synhwyrol, ac rwy'n edrych ymlaen at gael y ddadl lawn honno a chyfrannu yn llawnach ar rai o'r materion yno. Yr hyn y byddwn i'n ei ddweud o ran un pwynt o egwyddor, o bosib, yw bod y Comisiwn yn cyfeirio at yr 'ymyl garw', a ddisgrifiwyd, er yn fwy rhyddieithol yn y cyd-destun hwn, yn natganiad y Prif Weinidog yn 'heriau ymarferol yn deillio o rannu cyfrifoldebau rhwng San Steffan a Chymru' Ac fe sylwais i pan oedd arweinydd yr wrthblaid yn rhoi ei ymateb ef, y cafodd ei heclo gryn dipyn am fod yn wrthwynebus i ddatganoli. Ond rwy'n credu, yn anochel, i rai ohonom ni, beth bynnag fo'r rhaniadau rhwng yr hyn sydd wedi'i ddatganoli a'r hyn sydd heb ei ddatganoli, bydd yn parhau i fod yn rhyw fath o ymyl garw; bydd yna rywfaint o anhawster bob amser ar y lefel honno pan fydd dwy wahanol ffurflywodraeth yn cwrdd â'i gilydd. Ond mae'r adroddiad hwn yn cymryd yn ganiataol, lle bynnag y digwydd hynny - er enghraifft, ynglŷn â chyfiawnder - mai'r ateb yw datganoli i Gymru bob amser. Mae rhai ohonom wedi dechrau pryderu, os yw datganoli yn llwybr unffordd parhaol a phellach o bwerau cynyddol bob amser ac ym mhob achos, efallai nad yw hynny'n rhywbeth y mae pobl Cymru'n dymuno ei weld, ac y bydd hefyd yn peryglu'r llif sylweddol iawn o adnoddau ariannol y mae Cymru'n eu cael o Loegr mewn amgylchiadau lle mae gennym fwlch o £13.7 miliwn o ran cyllid. Credaf fod angen cadw hynny mewn cof. Hefyd, os caf i fynd ar ôl pwynt Rhun, a oedd yn un da iawn yn fy marn i. Fe ddyfynnodd ef lyfr o'r enw The Secret Barrister, yr wyf innau wedi ei ddarllen hefyd, a'i gael yn frawychus iawn o ran cyflwr system y llysoedd yng Nghymru a Lloegr. Pan oeddwn i'n Aelod Seneddol yn Lloegr fe welais i rywfaint ar hyn, ond, a dweud y gwir, mae wedi gwaethygu llawer ers hynny, ac mae'r gostyngiad mewn gwariant ar y system gyfiawnder wedi bod yn fwy sylweddol bron nag yn unrhyw faes arall o weithgarwch y Llywodraeth, ac mae'r goblygiadau yn gwbl ddychrynllyd. Credaf fod yr adroddiad hwn nid yn unig yn dweud wrthym ni am Gymru; mae'n dweud wrthym ni am y system gyfiawnder yng Nghymru a Lloegr, ac i fod yn onest, nid i ni'n unig y mae'n ddefnyddiol, ond fe ddylai fod yn ddefnyddiol i Lywodraeth y DU a Senedd y DU. Os nad yw'r Ceidwadwyr yn argyhoeddedig o'u safiad cyffredinol, rwy'n gobeithio y byddan nhw'n defnyddio'r adroddiad hwn i ddangos yr hyn sy'n digwydd i ardal yng Nghymru a Lloegr sydd wedi gweld yr ymdrech ryfeddol hon a'r meddyliau dawnus a gweithio deheuig i dynnu sylw at sylwedd y problemau. Rwy'n gobeithio y bydd hwn yn cael ei ddarllen y tu hwnt i Gymru yn unig, ac mae llawer o'r problemau hyn yn cael eu hachosi o ganlyniad i Lywodraeth y DU ar lefel Cymru a Lloegr, ac mae angen mynd i'r afael â nhw. A gaf i groesawu rhai o'r materion penodol y mae'r Prif Weinidog wedi eu nodi heddiw, yn benodol y cynlluniau ar gyfer prentisiaethau yn y proffesiwn cyfreithiol a chefnogaeth Llywodraeth Cymru i hynny? Rwy'n credu bod hwnnw'n syniad da; rwyf i'n croesawu hynny. Rwy'n credu ar y cychwyn efallai y dylem ganolbwyntio ar gynllun peilot ar gyfer hynny, a hoffwn i dynnu sylw'r Prif Weinidog at weithredwyr cyfreithiol siartredig a'r cefndir a'r effaith gadarnhaol y maen nhw'n ei chael ar y gyfraith. Efallai, o ystyried sut mae eu system gymwysterau a chymorth nhw'n gweithio, fe allai fod yn fan da ar gyfer ymgysylltiad cychwynnol ac ystyried sut y gall Llywodraeth Cymru helpu hynny i ddatblygu. O ran rhai o'r meysydd eraill, Cyngor y Gyfraith, y labordy arloesedd cyfreithiol ym Mhrifysgol Abertawe, pwyllgor cyfiawnder yn y Cabinet, os caf fenthyca ymadrodd gan Lywodraeth Cymru, rwy'n credu bod y rhain yn bethau y byddem ni'n eu cefnogi nhw mewn egwyddor. Un pwynt pwysig yr wyf yn awyddus i'w wneud - ac fe fydd ymateb y Prif Weinidog o ddiddordeb i mi - ynglŷn â'r adroddiad ar lefel fwy technegol yw ym maes penodi i'r Goruchaf Lys. Rwyf wedi fy siomi gan y dull gweithredu a'r sail dystiolaeth yn yr adroddiad yn hyn o beth oherwydd mae'n rhywbeth y gwnaethom ni ei drafod ychydig wythnosau yn ôl yn y Siambr ac rwy'n cytuno â'r argymhelliad pwysig a wna'r adroddiad fod yn rhaid i'r Goruchaf Lys gael barnwr sydd â'r wybodaeth a'r profiad o ymarfer â chyfraith Cymru, ond hefyd o'r cynllun datganoli i Gymru a Chymru yn rhan ar wahân o'r Deyrnas Unedig. Rwy'n credu bod hynny'n iawn ac rwy'n credu y dylid rhoi hynny ar waith beth bynnag a ddigwyddith o ran argymhellion eraill, ond fe ddywed yr adroddiad eu bod nhw'n argymell rhoi Cymru mewn sefyllfa debyg i'r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon yn y Goruchaf Lys o ran penodi barnwyr i'r Goruchaf Lys. Yn anffodus, nid yw'r hyn y maen nhw'n ei gynnig yn ddigonol i wneud hynny, a'r rheswm, mae arnaf ofn, yw bod y comisiwn cyfiawnder wedi camddisgrifio sut y penodir barnwyr i'r Goruchaf Lys ar hyn o bryd. Ym mharagraff 2.90, maen nhw'n dweud, Gwneir penodiadau i'r Llys Apêl ac i'r Goruchaf Lys ar sail argymhelliad Comisiynau lle mae Comisiynwyr o'r Comisiwn Penodiadau Barnwrol yn ffurfio'r mwyafrif. Nawr, mae hynny'n gywir o ran y Llys Apêl, ond nid yw'n gywir o ran y Goruchaf Lys ac nid yw'r cyfeiriad at 'y Comisiwn Penodiadau Barnwrol' yn ddefnyddiol o ystyried y canolbwyntio ar ddatganoli a natur y Goruchaf Lys. I edrych ar ddatganiad y Goruchaf Lys ei hun ar ei wefan am y weithdrefn ar gyfer penodi ynad Goruchaf Lys y Deyrnas Unedig, mae'n cyfeirio at banel o bump, Llywydd y Goruchaf Lys, ac yna mae hi'n enwebu uwch farnwr o unrhyw le yn y Deyrnas Unedig, ond ni all y barnwr hwnnw fod yn ynad yn y Goruchaf Lys, ac yna, yn ogystal â hynny, ceir aelod o bob un comisiwn penodiadau barnwrol ar gyfer Cymru a Lloegr, y bwrdd penodiadau barnwrol yn yr Alban, a'r comisiynydd penodiadau barnwrol yng Ngogledd Iwerddon. Mae'n rhaid i o leiaf un o'r cynrychiolwyr hynny fod yn lleygwr. Caiff enwebiadau eu gwneud gan gadeirydd y Comisiwn neu'r bwrdd perthnasol. Felly, mae'r adroddiad yn cydnabod y bydd barnwriaeth ar wahân yn gofyn am ddull annibynnol o benodi barnwrol a cheir cyfeiriad yn nes ymlaen at system benodi, ond rwy'n credu bod angen inni ddeall, yn arbennig felly os ydym am gael cydraddoldeb ym mhenodiadau i'r Goruchaf Lys, y goblygiadau o gael ein comisiwn penodiadau barnwrol ni ein hunain ar wahân, neu rywbeth o leiaf y byddai'r Goruchaf Lys yn cydnabod ei fod yn gyfystyr er mwyn caniatáu inni gael swyddogaeth gyfatebol yr awdurdodaethau eraill. Ac rwy'n credu bod hynny hefyd yn mynd i'r afael â hyn sef, 'a yw hi'n realistig mewn gwirionedd i fod â 10 yn unig o bobl ychwanegol?' Rwy'n gwybod bod y cyn Arglwydd Brif Ustus wedi gwneud adolygiad o gyfiawnder ac wedi llwyddo i wneud hynny gyda 10, ond rwy'n cytuno â'r Prif Weinidog, nid yw hynny'n realistig i Lywodraeth. A tybed a ellid rhoi rhywfaint o ystyriaeth i hyn oherwydd rydym mewn gwirionedd yn haeddu gwell triniaeth yn y Goruchaf Lys na dim ond yr Alban yn cael un o bump, Gogledd Iwerddon yn cael un o bump, ac yna fe geir un arall o'r pump sy'n cynrychioli Cymru a Lloegr. Pe byddem ni'n dilyn y trywydd hwn o wahanu, fe fyddai hwnnw'n mynd yn gomisiwn penodiadau barnwrol ar gyfer Lloegr, ac nid oes unrhyw beth yn yr adroddiad a fyddai'n sicrhau ein bod ni'n cael ein trin yn gyfartal ac yn deg o ran y broses benodi ar gyfer y Goruchaf Lys. Felly, hoffwn i godi hynny gyda chi a gofyn i Lywodraeth Cymru, o leiaf, ymateb, o ystyried y camddehongliad hwnnw.