English: Thank you to Members for the variety of comments, and for the broad support for the point and purpose of the Bill, although I recognise there are some points of both clarification and reassurance and, indeed, some points about potential amendments that Members have signalled they might make. I do just want to deal at the outset, though, with the point made in a couple of contributions about whether or not we are a more litigious society or not and, indeed, the cost of making medical negligence claims. Look, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that people are more likely to complain now than 20 or 30 years ago. We're less deferential, and I actually think that's an expansion in people's access to justice; I don't think that's a bad thing at all. Part of our challenge, though, is, in terms of the cost of medical negligence claims, we are more aware of the significance of the impact of potential negligence, particularly if it happens, as we've seen at the start of this week, to a young person; there is life-long care involved. And I'm always nervous, when people talk about restricting the cost, about whether that means restricting people's access by restricting the cost recovery, and that then means that, essentially, for some people, you could be saying that, if you can't pay for it yourself, you won't get access to justice, or, indeed, about potentially restricting the overall recovery of costs for an individual who has suffered a form of negligence. And, regardless of what field it is in, I don't think it's the right approach to say that we should restrict the level of justice that people can receive. There are difficult challenges about things for us to do, but, actually, that is more about us improving the care that we provide, the quality within the system and the candour. There's different legislation that's trying to make improvements to the quality of care we provide in every part of the United Kingdom as well as the legislation we're piloting through the Assembly at present. But I think that's the area of focus in terms of how we reduce the cost of medical negligence. I don't think the focus should be on having an artificial restriction on people who have a form of complaint to be adjudicated upon. I'll just reiterate a couple of points I made in my contribution and thank the scrutiny committee chairs for giving me an opportunity to respond to them both in the early part of the debate, but I think I dealt with the points about timing. I put that on record. It wasn't possible to bring this forward in previous legislative statements; that's why it happened in the most recent one. It's also worth pointing out that, in terms of the scheme of regulations, section 30, as I said, in NHS Wales Act, they're all negative procedure regulations and the future liability scheme has been introduced on that basis too. In terms of the points about resources and asset transfer, I'm happy to confirm what, again, I said in my opening contribution about the scale of that asset transfer and how and when we'll be able to provide an indication of what that is. So, I'm happy to reiterate the acceptance of the recommendation made by the Finance Committee. In terms of our experience from the running of the risk pool for secondary care, I think this should give people practicing in primary care some confidence, not just of the financially well-run process that exists, but actually the level of direct care and support provided within that, and I don't think that it would be acceptable for me to say that there should be a bargain basement of that, if you like, individual or pastoral support available. So, I'm happy to say that is not the expectation and GPs themselves have a level of confidence about this more broadly. It's also worth pointing out that, in terms of the way in which the risk pool is run across NHS Wales at present, it is well-regarded within Wales and, indeed, across our border for the efficiency in which it is run. That should, again, give Members some confidence about the financial judgments that have been made, together with the independent advice that we've sought on that point. And, in terms of the point about not having an impact on cross-border activity, the point I made at the outset is that we will definitely have an impact on cross-border activity if we don't have regulations in place to provide a similar scheme for general practice in Wales when the English scheme comes into force at the start of April next year. I'm happy to restate my commitment to update Members on progress with medical defence organisations. That's both when I hope I'll be in a position to confirm agreement with the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland. Those are constructive negotiations that are taking place -
Welsh: Diolch i'r Aelodau am yr amrywiaeth o sylwadau, ac am y gefnogaeth eang i ddiben a phwrpas y Bil, er fy mod yn cydnabod bod rhai pwyntiau o eglurhad a sicrwydd ac, yn wir, rhai pwyntiau ynghylch gwelliannau posibl y mae Aelodau wedi awgrymu y gallent eu gwneud. Rwyf eisiau ymdrin ar y dechrau, serch hynny, â'r pwynt a wnaethpwyd mewn ambell gyfraniad ynghylch a ydym ni'n gymdeithas fwy cyfreithgar ai peidio ac, yn wir, y gost o wneud hawliadau am esgeuluster meddygol. Edrychwch, nid wyf yn credu ei fod o reidrwydd yn beth drwg fod pobl yn fwy tebygol o gwyno nawr nac 20 neu 30 mlynedd yn ôl. Rydym ni'n llai parchus, ac rwy'n meddwl bod hynny oherwydd ei bod hi'n haws i bobl geisio cyfiawnder; nid wyf yn credu bod hynny'n beth drwg o gwbl. Fel rhan o'n her, er hynny, o ran cost hawliadau esgeulustod meddygol, rydym ni'n fwy ymwybodol o arwyddocâd effaith esgeuluster posibl, yn enwedig os yw'n digwydd, fel yr ydym ni wedi gweld ar ddechrau'r wythnos hon, i berson ifanc; bydd angen gofal gydol oes. Ac rwyf bob amser yn nerfus, pan fydd pobl yn sôn am gyfyngu'r gost, ynghylch a yw hynny'n golygu cyfyngu ar fynediad pobl drwy gyfyngu ar adenillion costau, ac mae hynny wedyn yn golygu, yn y bôn, o ran rhai pobl, y gallech fod yn dweud hynny, os na allwch dalu amdano eich hun, ni fyddwch yn cael mynediad at gyfiawnder, neu yn wir y posibilrwydd o gyfyngu ar adennill costau cyffredinol ar gyfer unigolyn sydd wedi dioddef math o esgeulustod. A, waeth pa faes y mae ynddo, nid wyf yn credu mai'r dull cywir yw dweud y dylem ni gyfyngu ar lefel y cyfiawnder y gall pobl ei gael. Mae heriau anodd o ran y pethau sydd rhaid inni eu gwneud, ond, a dweud y gwir, mae a wnelo hynny fwy â gwella'r gofal yr ydym ni'n ei ddarparu, yr ansawdd o fewn y system a'r gonestrwydd. Mae yna ddeddfwriaeth wahanol sy'n ceisio gwella ansawdd y gofal yr ydym ni'n ei ddarparu ym mhob rhan o'r Deyrnas Unedig yn ogystal â'r ddeddfwriaeth yr ydym yn ei threialu drwy'r Cynulliad ar hyn o bryd. Ond rwy'n credu mai dyna'r maes i ganolbwyntio arno o ran sut yr ydym ni'n lleihau cost esgeuluster meddygol. Dydw i ddim yn credu y dylai'r pwyslais fod ar gael cyfyngiad artiffisial ar bobl sydd â math o gŵyn y bydd dyfarnu arni. Hoffwn ailadrodd un neu ddau o bwyntiau a wneuthum yn fy nghyfraniad a diolch i gadeiryddion y pwyllgorau craffu am roi cyfle imi ymateb iddyn nhw'n gynnar yn y ddadl, ond credaf imi ymdrin â'r pwyntiau ynglŷn ag amseru. Dywedais hynny ar goedd. Nid oedd yn bosibl dod â hyn gerbron mewn datganiadau deddfwriaethol blaenorol; dyna pam y digwyddodd yn yr un diweddaraf. Mae hefyd yn werth nodi, o ran y cynllun rheoliadau, adran 30, fel y dywedais, yn Neddf GIG Cymru, maen nhw i gyd yn rheoliadau gweithdrefn negyddol ac mae'r cynllun rhwymedigaethau'r dyfodol wedi'i gyflwyno ar y sail honno hefyd. O ran y pwyntiau am adnoddau a throsglwyddo asedau, rwy'n hapus i gadarnhau, unwaith eto, yr hyn a ddywedais yn fy nghyfraniad agoriadol am raddfa'r trosglwyddiad asedau hwnnw a sut a phryd y byddwn yn gallu rhoi syniad o'i faint. Felly, rwy'n fodlon ailadrodd y ffaith bod yr argymhelliad a wnaed gan y Pwyllgor Cyllid wedi'i dderbyn. O ran ein profiad o redeg y gronfa risg ar gyfer gofal eilaidd, rwy'n credu y dylai hyn roi rhywfaint o hyder i bobl sy'n ymarfer mewn gofal sylfaenol, nid yn unig yn y broses ariannol sy'n bodoli, sy'n cael ei rhedeg yn dda, ond mewn gwirionedd yn lefel y gofal a'r cymorth uniongyrchol sydd wedi'i ddarparu o fewn hynny, ac nid wyf yn credu y byddai'n dderbyniol i mi ddweud y dylai fod yna adran fargen, os mynnwch chi, ar gyfer y cymorth unigol neu fugeiliol sydd ar gael. Felly, rwy'n fodlon dweud nad dyna'r disgwyliad a bod gan feddygon teulu eu hunain lefel o hyder ynghylch hyn yn ehangach. Mae hefyd yn werth nodi, o ran y ffordd y mae'r gronfa risg yn cael ei rhedeg ar draws GIG Cymru ar hyn o bryd, ei bod yn uchel ei pharch yng Nghymru ac, yn wir, ar draws y ffin oherwydd y caiff ei rhedeg yn effeithlon. Dylai hynny, unwaith eto, roi rhywfaint o hyder i Aelodau ynghylch y dyfarniadau ariannol a wnaed, ynghyd â'r cyngor annibynnol yr ydym ni wedi'i geisio ar y pwynt hwnnw. Ac, o ran y pwynt ynghylch peidio â chael effaith ar weithgarwch trawsffiniol, y pwynt a wneuthum ar y cychwyn yw y byddwn yn bendant yn cael effaith ar weithgarwch trawsffiniol os nad oes gennym ni reoliadau ar waith i ddarparu cynllun tebyg ar gyfer ymarfer cyffredinol yng Nghymru pan ddaw cynllun Lloegr i rym ddechrau mis Ebrill y flwyddyn nesaf. Rwy'n fodlon ailddatgan fy ymrwymiad i roi'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf i'r Aelodau am gynnydd gyda sefydliadau amddiffyn meddygol. Dyna pryd rwy'n gobeithio y byddaf mewn sefyllfa i gadarnhau cytundeb gydag Undeb Amddiffyn Meddygol a Deintyddol yr Alban. Mae'r rheini'n drafodaethau adeiladol sy'n digwydd -