English: Can I thank the leader of the opposition for those questions, the last one perhaps more mischievous than the rest? I can say to her that, of course, parties have very different views on what the electoral system should look like and, indeed, what the size of this Assembly should be, but there is no reason why discussions cannot take place as to what the future might hold once those powers are devolved. She knows that I've said, as, indeed, has she, many times, that there is no justification for Wales to be treated in an inferior way, as a constituent nation of the four nations of the UK. This Bill does not go as far as it should in providing assurance in that regard - there's no question about that. Why should Wales be treated differently to Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of approach? I've never been one to argue, of course, that, in some way, Wales is different to Northern Ireland with half our population, or, indeed, to Scotland in terms of a differing approach. On the point of the jurisdiction, one of the things I have to say to Members is that Members should not assume that this Bill is driven in any way by some kind of logic. The reality is that we could end up in a situation where public order offences are created in Wales that are then policed by a police service that is not accountable in Wales and anybody convicted ends up in a justice system and, possibly, in prisons that are not run by the Welsh Government. There is no logic to that at all. If, as seems likely, the vast bulk of the criminal law is devolved bar a few offences, probably about 20-odd, again, we'll have a situation where, to my mind, the argument for keeping a single jurisdiction becomes considerably weaker again. We've put forward what we think is an entirely rational and practical solution, and that is that the legal jurisdiction would become formally different, as it is in Northern Ireland, as it is in Scotland, or the Isle of Man, Jersey or Guernsey, or at least 50 jurisdictions in the US. It's not a major step forward in that sense; there's not some kind of major change, but it makes it easier in terms of law making, but we share the court system. We could, realistically, I believe, have a shared court system with England, where the procedures are much the same, where the costs are shared appropriately, and yet, of course, we would have the freedom to pass laws in Wales. I think that's a pragmatic and sensible way forward, and I will continue to urge that on the Secretary of State. Unless there is some movement on the jurisdiction or policing, this settlement is a step forward, but it's not durable and it's not sustainable. My fervent hope was that we would get legislation that would settle, in the main, the issue of Wales's constitutional status for some years to come. She and I will have different views, perhaps, on what the end of the road is, but, nevertheless, it would've settled the argument for some years, but that's not what we will get, even though I recognise, of course, that there has been progress made here. I don't understand why policing is such a totemic issue. Scotland has it, Northern Ireland has it, London has it, Wales apparently not. Whenever I ask the question, the answer I'm given is, 'Well, it's a red line for us'. There's no logic behind it and it's for the UK Government to explain. On justice impact assessments, I don't see it in quite the same way. I would not be in favour, of course, of the Secretary of State having any powers to veto legislation that is created by this elected legislature, but the justice impact tests are similar, to my mind - I'm not arguing in favour of them - to regulatory impact assessments where we pass a law and we say, 'Well this is the effect that it will have on the courts'. That's it. There is nothing else that they could be possibly used for. They're not grounds for some kind of Westminster veto over Welsh law. It would be a document that would need to be produced, but nothing further could come of it. That's my interpretation of it and I don't defend them, but I don't think it's quite as difficult a point, even though I wouldn't particularly be in favour of them as perhaps has been suggested. I don't think there would be any process - or I can't see any process - whereby the UK Government could then use a justice impact assessment it didn't agree with in order to prevent Welsh law being put onto the statute book. There will be a much greater chance, of course, to look at the detail of the proposed Bill over the next few weeks and months. I do hope that the timetable in Westminster is not so rushed that it becomes highly problematic for amendments to be put down, as there do need to be amendments. Why, for example, if public order is going to be devolved and the law regarding public order, alcohol licensing isn't devolved, when the two of them, to me, run closely together? Is that just an oversight or is there some kind of logical reason for that? The reason that's been given to me over the last few months for not devolving licensing is that it's bound up in public order. Well, if public order is devolved, then so should licensing be as well. There needs to be more opportunity, of course, over the next few days, for parties to look at the detail of legislation. We need to delve more thoroughly into some areas to see what they mean exactly. That said, the vehicle is not as broken down as the last vehicle we were presented with, but there needs to be a lot of work done to sort the engine out and the seats and the wheels. That is exactly what we need to do over the course of the next few weeks. At least it wasn't something that appeared without an engine or with any wheels, which is what the last Bill was. I look forward, of course, to working with other parties to make sure that we get something that's coherent, sensible, fair and, above all, sustainable.
Welsh: A gaf fi ddiolch i arweinydd yr wrthblaid am y cwestiynau hynny, a'r olaf efallai yn fwy direidus na'r gweddill? Gallaf ddweud wrthi, wrth gwrs, fod gan y pleidiau safbwyntiau gwahanol iawn ynglŷn â sut y dylai'r system etholiadol fod ac yn wir, yr hyn y dylai maint y Cynulliad hwn fod, ond nid oes unrhyw reswm pam na ellir cynnal trafodaethau ynglŷn â beth sydd gan y dyfodol i'w gynnig pan ddatganolir y pwerau hynny. Mae'n gwybod fy mod i wedi dweud, fel hithau, lawer gwaith yn wir, nad oes cyfiawnhad dros drin Cymru mewn ffordd israddol, fel un o wledydd cyfansoddol pedair gwlad y DU. Nid yw'r Bil hwn yn mynd cyn belled ag y dylai i ddarparu sicrwydd yn hynny o beth - nid oes amheuaeth am hynny. Pam y dylai Cymru gael ei thrin yn wahanol i'r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon o ran dull o weithredu? Nid wyf erioed wedi bod yn un i ddadlau, wrth gwrs, fod Cymru, mewn rhyw ffordd, yn wahanol i Ogledd Iwerddon sydd â hanner ein poblogaeth, na'n wir i'r Alban o ran dull gwahanol o weithredu. Ar y pwynt ynglŷn â'r awdurdodaeth, un o'r pethau sy'n rhaid i mi ei ddweud wrth yr Aelodau yw na ddylent gymryd yn ganiataol fod y Bil hwn yn cael ei ysgogi mewn unrhyw fodd gan ryw fath o resymeg. Y realiti yw y gallem gyrraedd sefyllfa yn y pen draw lle bydd troseddau yn erbyn y drefn gyhoeddus yn cael eu creu yng Nghymru ac yn cael eu plismona wedyn gan wasanaeth yr heddlu nad yw'n atebol yng Nghymru a bydd unrhyw un a gafwyd yn euog yn mynd i system gyfiawnder ac o bosibl, i garchardai na chânt eu rhedeg gan Lywodraeth Cymru. Nid oes unrhyw resymeg yn hynny o gwbl. Os caiff y rhan helaeth o'r gyfraith droseddol ei datganoli, fel sy'n debygol, ac eithrio rhai troseddau - tua 20 mae'n debyg - unwaith eto, bydd gennym sefyllfa lle bydd y ddadl dros gadw awdurdodaeth sengl yn gwanhau'n sylweddol eto yn fy marn i. Rydym wedi cyflwyno'r hyn y credwn sy'n ateb hollol resymegol ac ymarferol, sef y byddai'r awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol yn dod yn ffurfiol wahanol, fel y mae yng Ngogledd Iwerddon, fel y mae yn yr Alban, neu Ynys Manaw, Jersey neu Guernsey, neu o leiaf 50 o awdurdodaethau yn yr Unol Daleithiau. Nid yw'n gam mawr ymlaen yn yr ystyr hwnnw; nid oes newid mawr o ryw fath, mae'n ei gwneud yn haws o ran deddfu, ond rydym yn rhannu'r system llysoedd. Gallem, yn realistig yn fy marn i, gael system o rannu llysoedd gyda Lloegr, lle mae'r gweithdrefnau bron yr un fath, lle rhennir y costau'n briodol, ac eto, wrth gwrs, byddai gennym y rhyddid i basio deddfau yng Nghymru. Rwy'n credu bod honno'n ffordd bragmataidd a synhwyrol ymlaen, a byddaf yn parhau i annog yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol i ystyried hynny. Oni bai bod rhywfaint o symud ar yr awdurdodaeth neu blismona, mae'r setliad hwn yn gam ymlaen, ond nid yw'n gadarn ac nid yw'n gynaliadwy. Fy ngobaith mawr oedd y byddem yn cael deddfwriaeth a fyddai at ei gilydd yn setlo mater statws cyfansoddiadol Cymru am rai blynyddoedd i ddod. Bydd ganddi hi a minnau wahanol safbwyntiau, efallai, ar yr hyn fydd diwedd y daith, ond er hynny, byddai wedi setlo'r ddadl am rai blynyddoedd. Ond nid dyna a gawn, er fy mod yn cydnabod, wrth gwrs, fod cynnydd wedi'i wneud yma. Nid wyf yn deall pam y mae plismona yn fater mor dotemaidd. Mae gan yr Alban drefn felly, a Gogledd Iwerddon, a Llundain, ond nid yw Cymru yn ei chael. Pan fyddaf yn gofyn y cwestiwn, yr ateb a roddir i mi yw, 'Wel, mae'n llinell goch i ni'. Nid oes unrhyw sail resymegol drosto a lle Llywodraeth y DU yw esbonio hynny. Ar asesiadau o'r effaith ar gyfiawnder, nid wyf yn ei weld yn union yn yr un ffordd. Wrth gwrs, ni fyddwn am i'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol gael unrhyw bwerau i roi feto ar ddeddfwriaeth sy'n cael ei chreu gan y ddeddfwrfa etholedig hon, ond mae'r profion effaith ar gyfiawnder yn debyg, yn fy marn i - nid wyf yn dadlau o'u plaid - i asesiadau effaith rheoleiddiol lle rydym yn pasio deddf ac yn dweud, 'Wel dyma'r effaith y bydd yn ei chael ar y llysoedd'. Dyna ni. Nid oes dim arall o gwbl y gellid eu defnyddio ar ei gyfer. Nid ydynt yn sail i ryw fath o feto gan San Steffan dros gyfraith Cymru. Byddai'n ddogfen y byddai angen ei chynhyrchu, ond ni allai dim byd pellach ddod o'r peth. Dyna fy nehongliad ohono ac nid wyf yn eu hamddiffyn, ond nid wyf yn credu ei fod yn bwynt mor anodd â hynny, er na fyddwn yn eu ffafrio'n arbennig fel sydd wedi cael ei awgrymu o bosibl. Nid wyf yn credu y byddai unrhyw broses - neu ni allaf weld unrhyw broses - lle gallai Llywodraeth y DU ddefnyddio asesiad o'r effaith ar gyfiawnder nad oedd yn cytuno ag ef er mwyn atal cyfraith Cymru rhag cael ei rhoi ar y llyfr statud. Bydd llawer mwy o gyfle, wrth gwrs, i edrych ar fanylion y Bil arfaethedig yn ystod yr wythnosau a'r misoedd nesaf. Rwy'n gobeithio na fydd yr amserlen yn San Steffan mor frysiog nes ei gwneud yn broblematig iawn i gynnwys gwelliannau, gan fod angen gwelliannau. Er enghraifft, os yw'r drefn gyhoeddus yn mynd i gael ei datganoli a bod y gyfraith ar faterion trefn gyhoeddus, trwyddedu alcohol, heb ei datganoli, pan fo'r ddau ohonynt, i mi, mor agos at ei gilydd, ai amryfusedd yn unig yw hynny neu a oes rhyw fath o reswm rhesymegol dros hynny? Y rheswm a roddwyd i mi dros y misoedd diwethaf am beidio â datganoli trwyddedu yw ei fod yn rhan anwahanadwy o faterion trefn gyhoeddus. Wel, os yw materion trefn gyhoeddus wedi'u datganoli, yna dylai trwyddedu fod wedi'i ddatganoli hefyd. Mae angen mwy o gyfle, wrth gwrs, dros yr ychydig ddyddiau nesaf, i bleidiau edrych ar fanylion y ddeddfwriaeth. Mae angen i ni ymchwilio'n fwy trylwyr i rai meysydd i weld beth yn union y maent yn ei olygu. Wedi dweud hynny, nid yw'r cerbyd wedi torri i'r fath raddau â'r cerbyd diwethaf a gyflwynwyd i ni, ond mae angen gwneud llawer o waith ar yr injan a'r seddi a'r olwynion. Dyna'n union sydd angen i ni ei wneud dros yr ychydig wythnosau nesaf. O leiaf nid oedd yn rhywbeth a ymddangosodd heb injan a heb olwynion, sef yr hyn oedd y Bil diwethaf. Edrychaf ymlaen, wrth gwrs, at weithio gyda'r pleidiau eraill i wneud yn siŵr fod gennym rywbeth sy'n gydlynol, yn synhwyrol, yn deg ac yn anad dim, yn gynaliadwy.