English: I thank the Member for those comments and for the various questions, most of which, though, did not actually address the fundamental part of the statement I've issued, which is actually about the access of citizens and people to legal aid and the problems that exist with that. Let me just deal with a few of the issues you raised. You talked about the funding of additional police officers. Of course we welcome that and the increase, although we have yet to see it reach the level of policing that the Tory Government inherited in 2010. We still have fewer police officers than we use to have, and in actual fact, the Welsh Government, as part of the justice system, is now funding 600 police community support officers in our communities because of the absence of UK funding. On the issue of Nightingale courts and specialist arrangements because of COVID, I have no problem with some of those arrangements. I've yet to see the detail of some of them and how they might actually work in practice, but it doesn't address the issue of people actually having access to lawyers and access to advice and so on. What the Member fails to recognise is that what happened in 2012 was that the Conservative Government massively cut access to justice and excluded whole areas of social welfare law access to people. The legal aid budget in 2012, when you introduced the legislation, was £2.2 billion. At a stroke, you cut £751 million from that budget. On top of that you've closed courts, which means many people cannot even get to the courts. There are people - and this is reported in the Bellamy report - who actually cannot afford to get to court, so they wait for a summons to be issued so they can be arrested and that the police will then bring them to court. This is the actual state we're in. And we actually have people now, in terms of online, who don't have access to the technology, sometimes, to access online proceedings, who give evidence by mobile phone. That is grossly unacceptable. What happened in 2011 was that there were 91,000 citizens across the UK who received advice for welfare issues, and that fell, as a result of the UK Government's cuts, by 99 per cent, at a stroke. And since then, the issues in terms of social welfare issues, housing and family issues have increased, actually, dramatically. You raise the issue about safety measures being introduced in courts and, of course, I welcome that - safety measures have been introduced in most workplaces and public places. But we still have a system where we do not have proper investment in the civil justice centre - a proper and decent court in the capital of Wales, Cardiff - which we've been pressing for for some time. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, yet we don't seem to get court facilities that are suitable for lawyers, for those who are participating in the proceedings, and for the safety of the judiciary themselves. In terms of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, that will be a matter of a very detailed discussion at some stage, because, essentially, the judicial review Bill is more about enabling the Government to pass legislation and not be scrutinised in any way by the courts where the Acts of Government are unlawful. Now, in terms of drug and alcohol courts and so on, well, of course, we have the first pilot in Cardiff, and I welcome that very much. But, of course, even though it is not our responsibility, it is being funded by hundreds of thousands of pounds of Welsh Government money. Now, in terms of engagement with the UK Government, I have met, as has the Minister for Social Justice, with Lord Wolfson. We've been discussing these issues. We are looking at those issues where we can collaborate and work together on justice issues, and we're also looking in terms of those areas where we actually need change and reform in respect of the way justice is actually delivered, which is where we come to the importance of the devolution of justice. You have given, obviously, the Downing Street line, in terms of devolution of justice. What I would hope is that we will present, actually, the way in which we can show that justice can be delivered better. But what I will say in conclusion to my answer to your comments is that what you have totally done is sidestep. The fundamental issue is that we have advice deserts within Wales and we have many, many thousands of our constituents, across Wales who have no access to justice at all, and that we have a two-tiered justice system. It is a great sadness that you did not address that in your questions to me.
Welsh: Diolch i'r Aelod am y sylwadau yna ac am y gwahanol gwestiynau, y rhan fwyaf ohonyn nhw, er hynny, ddim mewn gwirionedd yn mynd i'r afael â rhan sylfaenol y datganiad yr wyf wedi'i gyhoeddi, sy'n ymwneud â gallu dinasyddion a phobl i gael gafael ar gymorth cyfreithiol a'r problemau sy'n bodoli ynghylch hynny. Gadewch i mi ymdrin ag ychydig o'r materion a godwyd gennych. Sonioch chi am ariannu swyddogion heddlu ychwanegol. Wrth gwrs, rydym yn croesawu hynny a'r cynnydd, er nad ydym eto wedi ei weld yn cyrraedd lefel y plismona a etifeddwyd gan y Llywodraeth Dorïaidd yn 2010. Mae gennym lai o swyddogion heddlu o hyd nag yr oedd gennym ni ac mewn gwirionedd, mae Llywodraeth Cymru, fel rhan o'r system gyfiawnder, bellach yn ariannu 600 o swyddogion cymorth cymunedol yr heddlu yn ein cymunedau oherwydd diffyg cyllid y DU. O ran llysoedd Nightingale a threfniadau arbenigol oherwydd COVID, nid wyf yn gweld problem gyda rhai o'r trefniadau hynny. Nid wyf eto wedi gweld manylion rhai ohonyn nhw a sut y gallen nhw weithio'n ymarferol, ond nid yw'n mynd i'r afael â'r broblem ynghylch pobl yn cael gwasanaeth cyfreithwyr a chael gafael ar gyngor ac ati. Yr hyn y mae'r Aelod yn methu â'i gydnabod yw mai'r hyn a ddigwyddodd yn 2012 oedd bod y Llywodraeth Geidwadol wedi torri mynediad at gyfiawnder yn aruthrol ac wedi eithrio meysydd cyfan o fynediad at gyfraith les cymdeithasol i bobl. Roedd y gyllideb cymorth cyfreithiol yn 2012, pan gyflwynwyd y ddeddfwriaeth gennych, yn £2.2 biliwn. Ar un ergyd fe wnaethoch chi dorri £751 miliwn o'r gyllideb honno. Ar ben hynny rydych wedi cau llysoedd, sy'n golygu na all llawer o bobl hyd yn oed gyrraedd y llysoedd. Mae pobl - ac adroddir hyn yn adroddiad Bellamy - na allan nhw fforddio cyrraedd y llys, felly maen nhw'n aros i wŷs gael eu cyhoeddi fel y gellir eu harestio a bydd yr heddlu wedyn yn dod â nhw i'r llys. Dyma'r union gyflwr yr ydym ni ynddo. Ac mae gennym ni bobl nawr, o ran ar-lein, nad oes ganddyn nhw fodd i gael gafael ar y dechnoleg, weithiau, i fod yn rhan o achosion ar-lein, sy'n rhoi tystiolaeth dros ffôn symudol. Mae hynny'n hollol annerbyniol. Yr hyn a ddigwyddodd yn 2011 oedd bod 91,000 o ddinasyddion ledled y DU wedi cael cyngor ar faterion lles, a gostyngodd hynny, o ganlyniad i doriadau Llywodraeth y DU, 99 y cant, ar un ergyd. Ac ers hynny, mae'r materion o ran materion lles cymdeithasol, tai a materion teuluol wedi cynyddu, mewn gwirionedd, yn sylweddol. Rydych yn codi'r mater ynghylch cyflwyno mesurau diogelwch mewn llysoedd ac, wrth gwrs, rwy'n croesawu hynny - mae mesurau diogelwch wedi'u cyflwyno yn y rhan fwyaf o weithleoedd a mannau cyhoeddus. Ond mae gennym system o hyd lle nad oes gennym fuddsoddiad priodol yn y ganolfan cyfiawnder sifil - llys priodol a boddhaol ym mhrifddinas Cymru, Caerdydd - rydym wedi bod yn pwyso amdano ers peth amser. Cyfrifoldeb y Weinyddiaeth Gyfiawnder ydyw, ac eto nid yw'n ymddangos ein bod yn cael cyfleusterau llys sy'n addas i gyfreithwyr, i'r rhai sy'n cymryd rhan yn yr achosion, ac er diogelwch y farnwriaeth eu hunain. O ran y Bil Adolygiad Barnwrol a Llysoedd, bydd hynny'n fater o drafodaeth fanwl iawn rywbryd, oherwydd, yn y bôn, mae'r Bil adolygu barnwrol yn ymwneud mwy â galluogi'r Llywodraeth i basio deddfwriaeth heb unrhyw graffu gan y llysoedd lle mae Deddfau'r Llywodraeth yn anghyfreithlon. Nawr, o ran llysoedd cyffuriau ac alcohol ac ati, wel, wrth gwrs, mae gennym y cynllun treialu cyntaf yng Nghaerdydd, ac rwy'n croesawu hynny'n fawr iawn. Ond, wrth gwrs, er nad ein cyfrifoldeb ni ydyw, mae'n cael ei ariannu gan gannoedd o filoedd o bunnau o arian Llywodraeth Cymru. Nawr, o ran ymgysylltu â Llywodraeth y DU, rwyf wedi cyfarfod, fel y mae'r Gweinidog Cyfiawnder Cymdeithasol hefyd, gyda'r Arglwydd Wolfson. Rydym wedi bod yn trafod y materion hyn. Rydym yn edrych ar y materion hynny lle y gallwn gydweithio ar faterion cyfiawnder, ac rydym hefyd yn edrych, o ran y meysydd hynny, lle mae arnom angen newid a diwygio mewn gwirionedd o ran y ffordd y caiff cyfiawnder ei gyflawni, a dyma lle yr ydym yn dod at bwysigrwydd datganoli cyfiawnder. Rydych chi, yn amlwg, wedi rhoi safbwynt Stryd Downing, o ran datganoli cyfiawnder. Yr hyn y byddwn i'n ei obeithio yw y byddwn ni'n cyflwyno, mewn gwirionedd, y ffordd y gallwn ni ddangos y gellir darparu cyfiawnder yn well. Ond yr hyn y gwnaf i ei ddweud i gloi fy ateb i'ch sylwadau yw mai'r hyn yr ydych chi wedi'i wneud, yn llwyr, yw cilgamu. Y mater sylfaenol yw bod gennym anialwch o ran cyngor yng Nghymru ac mae gennym lawer, miloedd lawer o'n hetholwyr, ledled Cymru heb fynediad at gyfiawnder o gwbl, a bod gennym system gyfiawnder ddwy haen. Mae'n drist iawn na wnaethoch chi fynd i'r afael â hynny yn eich cwestiynau i mi.