The next item is a statement by the First Minister on the report of the Commission on Justice in Wales. I call on the First Minister to make the statement—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you, Llywydd. The publication of the independent Commission on Justice in Wales's report on 24 October was a watershed moment. I will start, therefore, by paying tribute to my predecessor as First Minister, who was responsible for the establishment of the commission in the first place. I also wish to thank Lord Thomas and all of the members of the commission.

We knew from the start that we were appointing a highly regarded, diverse and independent-minded panel. What we did not know was the scale of the task that they would take on. Put simply, this is the most comprehensive exercise ever undertaken in examining Wales's justice system. It deserves careful and detailed consideration from all Assembly Members.

Llywydd, this is indeed a landmark report. It gives us not just 78 specific recommendations, but a real treasure trove of testimony and advice, reflecting an enormous drawing together of evidence from more than 200 people and institutions orally, and similar numbers in writing. It shines a light into every aspect of our justice system.

Now, a report of this scale deserves far fuller consideration than it can be given today. But let me begin by identifying what seems to me to be the most striking conclusion of the report and then to say something about our approach to responding to it.

The most striking finding, it seems to me, there, in the very first paragraph of the report, is that the people of Wales are being let down by their justice system. That is the commission's unambiguous conclusion. And I think that we should not underestimate the significance of that finding. A fair, effective and accessible justice system is a cornerstone of freedom and of democracy. It is, or it should be, non-negotiable. We should not allow ourselves to become accustomed to, still less to accept, embedded failures to meet those standards.

Llywydd, let me pick out some specifics from the report. Proper access to justice, it says, is not available. In many areas of Wales, as the question from Joyce Watson suggested earlier this afternoon, people face long and difficult journeys to their nearest court. There is a serious risk, the report says, to the sustainability of legal practice, especially in traditional high-street legal services. And all this at a time when, as the report says, Wales has one of the highest prison populations per head in western Europe, even though the evidence is that robust community sentences achieve better outcomes in so many cases. Meanwhile, the number of prosecutions is falling. We lack facilities for women offenders and there are too many gaps in Welsh language provision. Llywydd, it is the cumulative nature of the conclusions that makes them so additionally compelling.

Now, the challenge they pose will not be overcome without a change in the respective roles of Westminster and the devolved institutions, as well as in professional practice in the very many different facets of the justice system. In a key finding, the commission tells us:

'We do not see how it is possible to carry out the changes that are needed in a way that provides a practical long-term solution and makes a real difference to the people of Wales', without substantial devolution of justice functions. Justice, as the report says, is not an island, and the decisions about how the system should operate need to be aligned with other social and economic priorities. And, as the authors say, there needs to be clear and democratic accountability for the way in which the system operates in Wales. This central finding is consistent with the long-standing position of the Welsh Government, reaffirmed most recently in our paper, 'Reforming the Union', published only last month.

Now, in the past, Llywydd, we have often argued this from a constitutional standpoint—that a nation that makes and executes its own laws ought also to police them, in the broadest sense of that word. But what this report tells us is that there are real practical challenges that flow from the division of responsibilities between Westminster and Wales. How, then, are the recommendations of the report and its many other proposals to be taken forward? Well, as Members will know, within less than a week of the report's publication, a general election has been called. This means that there is an unavoidable hiatus in our ability to open a dialogue with the UK Government, but that discussion will need to begin as soon as we have a Government again in office.

In the meantime, that does not prevent us, of course, from focusing on those aspects of the report that fall to many justice actors here in Wales. To provide just one example, Llywydd: the report challenges Wales's excellent law schools to work more effectively together to recognise the place of Welsh law in legal education and to ensure teaching materials are available in both languages. And the report, of course, also reflects on the history of the Welsh Government involvement during the whole of the devolution era in criminal justice matters and makes proposals for the future.

Indeed, one thing that I think many readers will find a surprise is the estimate that 38 per cent of the total justice expenditure in Wales already comes from the Welsh Government and Welsh local authorities, and this despite our very limited role in formulating policy and ensuring that those funds are spent beneficially and in a way that is consistent with our priorities.

So, the commission is clear that there is much more that needs to be done, and where the recommendations in the report fall to the Welsh Government to deliver, we will now look to take them forward. And this afternoon, I wanted to give just three brief examples of how we will go about that important work.

The commission calls on the Welsh Government to provide fully funded legal apprenticeships as a new pathway into the profession, a pathway that may particularly help people who might choose to practice in parts of the country where there are now too few practitioners to be found. We will now work with the professions to explore how best to do this, building on the higher apprenticeship options we already have in probate and conveyancing here in Wales.

Secondly, the commission also calls for the creation of a law council of Wales to promote the interests of legal education and the awareness of Welsh law. That is not something that the Welsh Government can do alone, but we will take the initiative to support its establishment and to get that council started on its important work.

And as an immediate response to the commission’s call for investment in technological development, Members may have seen that funding of £4 million has been put towards a new legal innovation lab to be housed at Swansea University.

Finally, Llywydd, in response to the commission’s call for a strengthening of leadership within the Welsh Government on justice matters, I have decided to establish a new justice committee of the Cabinet, and that is a Cabinet committee that I will chair. This committee will be responsible for taking forward these recommendations, the ones that fall to the Welsh Government, and to oversee discussions with the new Government at UK level.

Llywydd, as I said in opening, the report will need fuller discussion and broader discussion than we are able to give it this afternoon. But the Assembly will rightly want to know of progress that is being made, so I can provide an assurance this afternoon that, as a first step, the Government will bring forward a debate on the report in the new year. In the meantime, let me once again thank the commission for all their work and for the product of that work, this landmark report, which I want to welcome here this afternoon.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon? I'd also like to add my thanks to the commissioners and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who made himself available to Assembly Members during the course of producing this report.

Whilst there are some very admirable arguments about the devolution of justice to Wales, we on this side of the Chamber still remain unconvinced that its devolution is the right way forward. However, that's not to say that there isn't a great deal of merit in some of the findings in the commission's report. Chapter 10 of the report considers knowledge, skills and innovation, and calls for an action plan to be created to support and promote public legal education, particularly for children and young people, and that's something that I very much welcome.

Now, today's statement rightly recognises that as the Welsh Government considers the devolution of justice for the future, a much wider focus is given to the legal sector in Wales and the country's knowledge base is expanded. Therefore, perhaps the First Minister can tell us what work the Welsh Government is currently doing in this particular area to help better promote awareness and develop skills within the Welsh legal industry.

I warmly welcome the news that £4 million of funding has been made available to Swansea University for its legal innovation lab, however, as today's statement notes, Wales's law schools are challenged more to work effectively together. So, can the First Minister tell us if the Welsh Government will be developing and implementing a specific strategy at a higher education level to develop Wales's legal studies programmes in all parts of the country?

Of course, I acknowledge that in some areas there are complexities between the work done by both the Welsh Government and the UK Government, and the commission's report makes it clear that family justice is an area that struggles between the responsibilities of both Governments. The report rightly acknowledges the importance of preventative action, and this is something that the Welsh Government could and should be doing more work on, and so perhaps in his response the First Minister could tell us a bit more about the work that the Welsh Government has done around family justice.

Now, in responding to the commission's consultation, the Law Society's evidence stated that, and I quote:

'We have a world-renowned legal system with judges of the highest calibre. These benefits have developed over hundreds of years and will continue for years to come regardless of our departure from the European Union.'

Unquote. And so it begs the question that these benefits could be lost in a separate jurisdiction. So, what assurances can the Welsh Government offer to those who share that particular view?

The Law Society also raised the issue of rural practice and the need for infrastructure issues to be addressed, and, as today's statement recognises, it will be absolutely crucial that these major infrastructure issues are dealt with to ensure that those needing legal services have access to them. With high street services diminishing, waves of broadband notspots, and public transport being often unreliable and expensive, this could have an impact on access to justice and the long-term sustainability of legal services in rural areas. Therefore, given Wales's geography, how confident is the First Minister that these infrastructure barriers could be managed so that those needing access to legal services will have them in the future?

Of course, Wales's geography means that devolving criminal justice isn't entirely straightforward, and there are some understandable concerns regarding the impact that devolving criminal justice could have on the Wales-England border. Calls for the devolution of criminal justice to Wales fail to recognise that criminal activity does not recognise national or regional boundaries and that around 48 per cent of the public live within 25 miles of the border with England and—[Interruption.] And 90 per cent of people—[Interruption.] And 90 per cent of people—[Interruption.] And 90 per cent of people live within 50 miles of the border. This, of course, contrasts sharply with the fact that only 5 per cent of the combined population of Scotland lives within 50 miles of the border. Therefore, perhaps the—.

Fifty American states.

Allow the leader of the opposition to carry on with his questioning of the First Minister.

Therefore, perhaps the First Minister could tell us a bit about the impact that devolving criminal justice could have on the border between Wales and England and tell us what discussions are already taking place on this specific issue.

Now, the First Minister will also be aware of some of the valid concerns over the capacity needed to deliver an effective criminal justice system. Currently, prisons in Wales do not offer integrated drug treatment systems, and we know from only last month the Welsh Government's advisory panel on substance misuse has failed to meet in the last year. Indeed, nearly half of people referred for substance misuse rehabilitation in Wales are treated in England, and, despite the Welsh Government ring-fencing £50 million for health boards, excellent centres around Wales are closing. As well as positive centres for rehabilitation, Wales is clearly lacking in suitable facilities for our prisoners, as today's news reports confirm. Therefore, what preparatory work has the Welsh Government already done to ensure that Wales has the resources and capacity to deliver a criminal justice system that can actually operate effectively?

Llywydd, as the public conversation surrounding devolving criminal justice continues to grow, it's more important than ever that Wales has an effective relationship with the UK Ministry of Justice, and so it falls on the Welsh Government to proactively encourage greater engagement to ensure that decisions that affect Wales reflect our country's circumstances. Perhaps the First Minister could update us on how the Welsh Government is ensuring that that is the case.

Therefore, in closing, can I thank the First Minister for his statement? Whilst there are certainly some very interesting points and recommendations made by the commission, the First Minister won't be surprised that we remain unconvinced that a full-scale devolution of justice is the right way forward for Wales, but I look forward to seeing further announcements by the Welsh Government, going forward.

Llywydd, can I thank Paul Davies for that contribution? He began by pointing to the way in which Lord Thomas had made himself available to Assembly Members during the preparation of the report, and I didn't have a chance in my statement to say that and to draw attention to the way in which the commission has gone about its work in speaking to so many different groups, so many different interests in Wales, making itself directly available in that way. And you see the product of that in the report itself.

Paul Davies says that he's unconvinced of the case for devolution of the criminal justice system. I'm left wondering what could ever convince him if this report does not, because you will never find a more compelling case set out than the one assembled in the report. I think it is less a matter, Llywydd, that the Conservative Party in unconvinced, than the Conservative Party will never allow itself to be convinced of this case, because it simply doesn't reflect the way in which they think about devolution.

Now, let me say that, having said that, there were a number of points that Paul Davies made that I think were a positive attempt to draw out those aspects of the report with which he does have agreement. I look forward to being able to continue to discuss those with him as implementation of the report proceeds.

He's right, of course—the report says a great deal about legal education and a great deal about the state of the legal profession. It's why my colleague the Counsel General instituted a rapid review of the position here in Wales during the time that Lord Thomas was sitting, in order to inform the report. That's well evidenced in its pages, and we've drawn on what the profession has told us. And one of the things that I think the report says—. And I think maybe I didn't quite agree with what Paul Davies said. The report is clear that the profession and the higher education institutions in Wales cannot continuously look to the Welsh Government to take the lead. Law schools in Wales are staffed by very senior, very well-regarded people with excellent reputations and they don't need us to do things for them. The things that are in this report that fall to them, the report says they must show the lead. The profession must show a lead in dealing with the issues that the report identifies as being important to them. We will want to be there with them, supporting them in that work, but the report never says, 'Every time there is a problem, it's the Welsh Government that has to find the solution.' It has to be much wider than that.

I want to thank Paul Davies for drawing attention to the chapter in the report, chapter 7, on family justice. It's a very substantial report. It's a compellingly argued report. I don't want to rehearse again some of the discussion that I had on the floor of the Assembly a fortnight ago about the approach that the Welsh Government is taking to dealing with issues of looked-after children, but you will see in this report what it refers to as the compelling evidence of the need for reform in the way that that service is delivered here in Wales; the way in which the costs in the current system for funds could be spent far, far better, the report says, in avoiding the need for children to be taken into local authority care; the testimony that it gives from young people themselves taken into care, who said to Lord Thomas that, if a fraction of the money spent on looking after them in care had been spent on their families to help their families to go on looking after them what a better outcome that would have been for them and for those families. It's a report any Assembly Member who maybe doesn't regard this as central to their interests here—if there was a single chapter in this report that I would ask them to read, that chapter on family justice would be the one that I think would merit anybody's consideration.

Paul Davies pointed to the issue of a separate jurisdiction. The report doesn't actually recommend, using those words, 'a separate legal jurisdiction', but it does recommend a separation of the judiciary—that there should be a formal creation of Welsh courts and a Welsh judiciary, and I think it sets out, very persuasively, why that would not run into some of the difficulties that Paul Davies set out in his statement. Of course, the devolution of something as huge as the justice system is not entirely straightforward, but nor is it unachievable. Some of the issues that Paul Davies raised really are old canards that we've heard time and time again in this debate. There are 50 states in America where people are able to move between one and another, and the justice system is not frustrated by that, just as it is not frustrated by the fact that there is a separate system in Scotland and in England.

Of course we want an effective relationship with the Ministry of Justice, and, during that brief period when we had a Secretary of State in David Gauke and a Minister in Rory Stewart, we were able to agree blueprints for women offenders, blueprints for young offenders—to have an approach to imprisonment that we would have been prepared to work with here in Wales. The problem we face, Llywydd, is that no sooner have you struck up a relationship with a team of Ministers than the merry-go-round at Westminster moves them on to somewhere else and we're back to square one again. We will go on making those efforts, but it does sometimes feel that it's very much uphill and against the grain of the way in which Whitehall operates in these matters.

May I thank the First Minister for his statement, and thank Lord Thomas and the members of the commission for their staggeringly thorough work in getting to the point where this report was brought forward to us as an Assembly? This is the beginning of a journey, if truth be told. I am pleased that we've had a statement today and an opportunity to make some comments. I'm also pleased that time will be allocated early in the new year to having a more comprehensive debate so that we can air these points in a little more detail. But we will then need to work across political parties, and across Parliaments too, in order to take these recommendations forward.

I do welcome the fact that the Conservatives, who don't at present see value in delivering these recommendations, are asking questions about how all of this can be moved forward. It's a matter of concern to me that the kinds of questions posed by the leader of the Conservatives today are at such a fundamental and basic level, and he is perhaps causing me to doubt just how much attention the Conservative Party has given to these recommendations and the thorough work done by Lord Thomas and his team. But I'm willing to accept that we must ask questions at every level so that we can make progress.

There are so many reasons why we, as a legislature, should be embracing these recommendations placed before us. On a point of principle, as lawmakers here in Wales, it's important for many of us here in Wales that we do become a Parliament that is a legislative body that deals with the justice system as a matter of principle. There are practicalities in terms of the difficulties that we face at the moment in delivering co-ordination between justice and the kinds of policies that will influence the justice system.

In Scotland and in England, they can form policy in a different context. But the main reason—and the main reason outlined very clearly in the report by Lord Thomas—for proceeding to implement these recommendations is that the deficiencies that have been highlighted do impact upon real people's lives here in Wales and the way in which the justice system deals with them, be that in how we deal with women within the justice system, how we treat people from ethnic minorities within our justice system, or how we operate legislation within family courts in a way that is sensitive to the needs of our young people and children here in Wales, as the First Minister mentioned.

Many of you, like myself, will have read—or will have started reading—The Secret Barrister, which looks at the deficiencies of the legal system in Britain or in England and Wales at the moment. We have an opportunity here in Wales now to address those weaknesses, which are so well known to many people working within the justice system, and to work in a way that, for the very first time, allows us to formulate a system that is sensitive to the needs of the people of Wales specifically. So, we will work together on these issues.

I do have a few questions. I welcome the fact that there will be a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by the First Minister. What about the role of the civil service in all of this? There are a few things that raise some doubts in my mind as to the attitude of the civil service. The Welsh civil service said that they would need 200 more policy officials, at a cost of around £14 million, in order to implement this kind of change. The suggestion by Lord Thomas was that 10 people would be needed, and that we could create a new model of working, drawing on the expertise of our universities and reflecting the benefits of being a small nation like Wales, in terms of efficiency. So, we don't want to copy what is done at an England and Wales level, but create something that is inherently Welsh. So, I would welcome some comments from the First Minister as to the confidence that he has as to whether the civil service can become an important partner in delivering all of this.

Finally, in terms of the role for the politicians at a UK level to deliver these changes, we heard the First Minister stating earlier that he had been campaigning since 1985, calling for these kinds of changes. Well, I do have to raise some questions as to the influence that you've managed to have on your fellow Labour members in Westminster. We know, don't we, that Labour MPs, for a long, long time after 1985 have been blocking the devolution of elements of the justice system. So, in that context, how confident are you that you can persuade your own party at the UK level, (1) to place these recommendations in a manifesto for an election, and to do so now? The recommendations before us are so clear and so unambiguous that there is no reason why any party couldn't promise to implement these. So, show us that you have the influence within your own party, because I make a pledge to you that the implementation of the Lord Thomas recommendations will be very strongly reflected in our manifesto as we enter this election.

Llywydd, I thank Rhun ap Iorwerth very much for those questions. I agree with what he said at the start of his contribution. We are at the beginning of a journey here, and it will take time to travel the whole path, and in order to do that it is important to have cross-party working. I welcome many of the things that Paul Davies said—the constructive things that he said—about a number of things in the report. He is interested in seeing how these recommendations may be implemented, and we must also work not just internally within the Assembly, but with people outwith the Assembly in Wales, and also with people in Westminster.

I also agree with what Rhun ap Iorwerth said about the practical recommendations in the report. For a number of people here, it is a matter of principle to have the justice system in the hands of the people here in the Assembly. But, in the report, they just make a more pragmatic case. It just shows the impact that the current system has on people's everyday lives here in Wales.

To turn to the questions as regards the civil service, well, we said 200 people because there are 300 people in the Scottish Executive working on those things that the report wishes to transfer to us in Wales. Well, Lord Thomas says 10 staff members—10 people to do everything contained within this report. I agree with him and with Rhun as well that we don't just have to emulate others or do things in the way that we've always done them, and we have to work with universities and draw more people in to co-operate with us, and I am totally open to doing it in that fashion, but if we are going to run the whole system—the courts, the probation service, youth justice, the profession, everything that's contained within this report—then it's difficult for me at present to see how 10 additional people could cope with that. But it's something for us to discuss on the journey, as Rhun mentioned.

Llywydd, I have attempted to do many things for a long time and failed. I'm sure that he has campaigned for independence for a long time, and he's failed to persuade people of that as yet. He's continuing to try to persuade people, as am I, and the report is a great help for us just as an evidence base from a group of totally independent people who have brought these conclusions forward.

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.

Llywydd, I thank the Member for his very engaged response to the report. He started by pointing to 'the jagged edge' that the report points to between responsibilities that we already exercise here in Wales and on which effective operation of the justice system depends. While there will always be, wherever you draw the line, some jagged edges, I think the report does a very convincing job of showing how that current system has those jagged edges embedded into the middle of the way that it operates, and how you can redesign that so they become peripheral to the way that the system operates rather than constant barriers right in the midst of it. I entirely agree with him that the report is of significance far beyond Wales. The cuts to legal aid, the cuts to the court service, the way the probation service was privatised and lost the confidence of the courts in the process, all of those are things that are true not just for Wales but for England as well.

I thank Mark Reckless for what he suggested in relation to apprenticeships, and how they might be designed. We'll look carefully at that. Every now and then, Llywydd, in reading the report, which took up quite a bit of my half-term, I found myself at the edge of my own technical grasp of some of the issues with which it deals. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, as I understood it, the court report suggests that there should be a Welsh judge formally appointed to the Supreme Court, and Mark Reckless's points—and I was trying to make sure I was following them—were not to dissent from that outcome, but to ask us to look carefully at what the report says about the method by which that might be brought about. And the Counsel General was sitting here listening carefully to that, and we'll make sure that we explore those points in the detail that they deserve.

First Minister, this is not only an impressive report, but an incredibly impressive panel of expertise, of really world-class standing, and as one would expect from a former Lord Chief Justice, the report is almost in the form of a very incisive judgment into the state of law within Wales. And the report, I think, is of such high competence and expertise—several hundred pages—that it took the Ministry of Justice approximately 15 minutes to tweet out that they rejected its findings but they would give them further consideration, whatever that meant. And I think that probably says more about the state of justice in the UK than anything else.

I'm very much grateful for the fact that there is going to be, at the appropriate time, a full and detailed report so we can debate these things properly. So, I only want to comment, really, on the one area, and it's an area I've raised time and time again, I think, ever since I've been in the Assembly, and in all my years, really—33 years—working as a practising lawyer, working for trade unions, working for working people. And that is this: we have lost, along the way, the understanding of not only the importance of justice and the rule of law, but the importance of access to it. And this was an understanding that we had in the post-1945 Labour Government, when the 1949 Act was introduced, when Viscount Simon, when he was introducing the Act, said that what we were creating was a national health service for law, because what was understood and recognised as fundamental in any society was that the law means nothing unless ordinary people have access to it, and are empowered to access that law. So, an environment where, effectively, in the past 10 years, there has been almost a 27 per cent cut in real terms in the funding of justice-related matters, indicates how far we have lost our understanding of the importance of justice to the people. And being a legislature now means we have the opportunity to actually put those fundamental principles back at the core of the Welsh legislature and the Welsh justice system that is actually developing.

It was well understood, the consequences of this—Lord Neuberger expressed this numerous times when he was president of the Supreme Court, when he said:

'My worry is the removal of legal aid for people to get advice'.

That not only undermines the whole legal system, it leads to people effectively beginning to have disregard to the law and taking the law into their own hands. And more recently, I think the head of the Bar commission basically just referred yet again, and consistently, to the huge threat to access to justice in the country, and the impact of the cuts, particularly on the poorest and most vulnerable within our society.

The part I would like to refer to and I would like to ask you about is really the part in chapter 3, where the recommendation is made that the funding for legal aid, and for the third sector—providing advice and assistance—should be brought together in Wales in a single fund. This is something we have debated over a number of years, and I know there's work that has gone on around this, and the fact that enormous amounts of Welsh money goes into various aspects in making up these shortfalls in the justice system, to ensure that some of the most vulnerable do get support, whether it be through Citizens Advice, whether it be through Women's Aid, whether it be through the various third sector bodies. And I wonder if you would agree with me that there is an opportunity now to start the process of the creation of a Welsh legal aid system, restoring that to the core, perhaps in two parts, because, of course, the devolution of funding and responsibilities are important, and certain things can't be done until that happens. But much of the administration and bureaucracy of that system already exists, and could well be brought within the ambit of Welsh Government if the funding followed it. And, clearly, the funding in respect of legal aid functions is something that would not take great minds in order to actually transfer, but it would be the creation of perhaps a two-stage process, getting ready for that to happen now, but starting the halfway house—perhaps the quasi legal aid system now—while we pull that together. And we also recognise the important contributions that bodies like the trade unions make to the provision of legal advice and legal support—for many years, the funders of much of the legal system for ordinary working people. And what was their reward by Tory Governments in the past? The reward was basically consistent legislation that made it more and more difficult for trade unions to operate and, in fact, to recruit members. So they clearly have a part to play within this, as many other bodies do. But I think we should commit ourselves, or we should start discussing committing ourselves, to the creation of a new route to legal advice and assistance, a composite Welsh route that would be the pride of a Welsh legal justice system.

Llywydd, can I thank Mick Antoniw for that? He began by pointing to the impressive nature of the panel. And when I had the privilege of helping to introduce the report on the day that it was launched, I remember saying that I thought that one of the key jobs that Ministers—and, in this case, the former First Minister—had to carry out, in getting this sort of work going, is to choose the right people to do it. And those are difficult decisions very often. But if you look at the panel who made up this commission, those decisions were very wise indeed, and have led to the report that we have today.

Mick Antoniw made a very important point, and it's here in the report, that, in the 1945 welfare state settlement, access to justice was a fundamental strand in the way those who were creating new rights for people—new social rights, in the Marshall sense, but new rights to justice as well—this was an integral part of the way that they thought citizenship rights in the United Kingdom would be discharged in the future. And the cuts that we have seen in the last decade, those cuts to legal aid and other access to justice aspects, are laid bare in this report. If you wanted to read no other paragraphs in it, read what this report says about litigants in person—people who are forced to represent themselves in court, because they have no access to advice, nobody else to speak up for them, the terrible burden that that places on them, and the way it slows down the whole court system, because they have to be helped from the bench repeatedly to understand what is going on and to make the points that they are entitled to make. It's such a false economy, isn't it, because it just throws costs into other parts of the system?

I was struck during the discussion, Llywydd, at how much more some Members here know about aspects of the justice system than I do. Mick Antoniw's idea of a Welsh legal aid system of course is one that we will want to look at as we take this forward. The report says, in that chapter 3, on access to justice, that the Welsh Government has had to divert money

'to address functions that were not devolved instead of using the resources for functions that had been devolved'.

And it then says that this

'was the right thing to do.'

But it wasn't—it shouldn't have been the necessary thing to do. But we will now be able to use some of that experience, and the funding that we have provided to third sector organisations, in that new system that Mick Antoniw has outlined this afternoon.

I will extend the time available for this statement a little, because of the importance of the statement, but may I ask the remaining speakers to be concise in their questions? Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.] You do have a happy habit of making those statements before I rise to speak. [Laughter.] I'm always very grateful to be called, of course.

First Minister, I'm grateful to you for making this statement this afternoon. I think, like other Members here, we are all very grateful to Lord Thomas and his team. Giving evidence last year to Lord Thomas, and to the commissioners, was a pretty terrifying experience, I have to say, and the level of scrutiny and the level of focus on the issues that were under discussion was something that was hugely impressive at that time, and I think it's demonstrated in the report that has been produced. For me, this is certainly a report about the justice system, but it is also a report about people. It's about fairness, it's about social justice and it's about the stability of the constitution of this country.

I was reading the report of Peter Clarke—the chief inspector of prisons—into Cardiff prison this morning, and what he says there is absolutely striking: something like half or all people released, all men released, from Cardiff prison are homeless upon release; 65 per cent have issues with mental health; 38 per cent have drug and alcohol addictions upon arrival at Cardiff prison. And these figures are seen to be quite good, quite reasonable figures. That's the burden of his report, and that this is an improvement on where we've been. But what that really tells you—what that really tells you is that we are used to a system that is so dramatically failing the people of Wales that we are used to a system that works for virtually nobody. And that is unacceptable—it's unacceptable. And it's not acceptable either to simply say, 'This is a very good report, we're going to file it away', and 'This is a very good report, we're going to have a seminar perhaps or take our instructions from elsewhere.' This is a report that demands action, and it demands action from this place.

I'm really very, very pleased that the First Minister has responded with the urgency that this report requires this afternoon. I very much welcome what the First Minister has said about a sub-committee of Cabinet to take these matters forward. I hope also that we will be able to ensure that we are able to move towards the creation of a justice department within the Welsh Government. The First Minister is absolutely right, in answer to an earlier question, about the weight of numbers and the resources available to achieve that. But there is already a job of work to be done, even without the devolution of these matters, to better co-ordinate and to manage the systems and the interfaces of services within this country. The report stands as a rebuke to people who have governed this country in the past, a rebuke to the constitution of this country, and a rebuke to all those people who say, 'It's simply too difficult, so I'm going to wash my hands of this.' Wash their hands, not only of the difficulty that we are confronted with, but wash their hands of the human consequences of it as well.

And so, First Minister, I welcome very much what you said this afternoon, both in answer to questions and in your statement. I hope that we will able to have a reasoned debate in the new year, as you have suggested. But, First Minister, I hope you will also be able to reassure all of us here that, in moving forward, you will do so with the urgency and the tempo that you've set this afternoon, with the understanding of the human issues that you've established this afternoon, but also with a clear understanding of how this will impact Wales and Wales's relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom.

One of the questions that Lord Thomas asked me during my evidence was whether there was a requirement for a symmetrical nature of devolution. We were talking about Great Britain, rather then the whole of the United Kingdom. And I believe, with my experience in Government, that we do require that symmetrical system of devolution. An asymmetrical system was acceptable in 1999, when we were establishing devolved government in Wales, but it does not provide the stability of governance and the stability of a settlement that will deliver the services we require and the sort of constitutional stability that we will require in the future.

So, First Minister, like others this afternoon, I'm very grateful to you for this statement, and I hope that you can reassure us that the Welsh Government will continue to pursue this, and to pursue this with urgency.

Llywydd, I thank Alun Davies for that. Let me respond to three or four points very quickly. He's absolutely right to point to the human consequences of the failures that the report outlines, and the human consequences are there right through the report. They stand out to you when you read them. The point I made earlier this afternoon about the apparent acceptability of saying to a witness, 'You've got to leave your house at 7 o'clock in the morning, maybe don't get back there till 7.30 p.m. at night'—that's fine as far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned. I don't think that's something that you would expect a vulnerable person, faced with the ordeal of a court case in front of them, to be able to just undertake without any consequences. So, the human part of this report—I thank Alun Davies for drawing attention to that.

We haven't talked about resources this afternoon, Llywydd, but Alun reminded me, and I should have said earlier, that funding will have to follow function if this report is ever to do what we want it to do. No Government can take on the responsibilities that are outlined in this report without being given the money that is necessary to discharge them properly.

I'm interested, of course, in the point Alun Davies made towards the end about symmetrical devolution. What I certainly think the report aims for is stable devolution. It aims for a coherent way of going about these responsibilities, putting them together in a package that will provide coherence and stability. There is an urgent need to get on with it. We will do that in terms of the recommendations that fall directly to us. And then we will inevitably be dependent on the willingness of others to move down that path with the same sense of determination.

First Minister, as we've heard, the criminal justice system in England and Wales is in need of much improvement. There's a body of evidence that establishes that, and I think this authoritative report significantly adds to it. We know that far too many people are sent to prison, as you mentioned in your opening statement, compared to our our western European neighbours, for example, and that creates overcrowding, which makes rehabilitation very, very difficult indeed.

We know that many of the people there have mental health issues, alcohol and drug issues, which are not properly or adequately addressed. And we know that there's much overlap between the services that Welsh Government is responsible for in terms of those problems and the non-devolved criminal justice aspects. We know that it all needs to be joined up much more effectively, and devolution would make that joining up so much easier. It would also enable, of course, joined-up scrutiny from the Assembly and outside bodies.

So, I just think that what we have at the moment is failing morally and failing very much in practical terms. What we have as a consequence is more victims of crime in Wales, in our communities, so our communities in general suffer from a higher level of crime than would otherwise be the case. And, of course, the families of offenders suffer, as well as the offenders themselves. It's a very bleak and, I must say, depressing picture that has persisted for far too long.

So, I really do believe that this report now, this authoritative report, is an opportunity to make progress on these matters with medium and longer term devolution, but also with the shorter term steps that are pointed to. And I hope very much, First Minister, that, in due course, Welsh Government will be able to set out its response in those terms—the short-term measures that can be taken as well as the medium and longer term improvements in terms of devolution. And I would hope, and I know many here today would hope, that Welsh Government will be able to set that out as quickly as possible in the most practical terms.

I thank John Griffiths for that, Llywydd. It is an authoritative report, absolutely, and I completely agree with him. Far too many people get sent to prison in Wales. We've seen the figures from the Wales Governance Centre, and that is a failure of having a coherent system, but it's also a failure of purpose in the system as well.

I was told recently, from someone who had visited a women's prison, where there were tens of women from Wales in that prison, that more than half of them were there because they had failed to attend to the conditions that their probation officer had placed on them. They hadn't, as far as I could tell, committed a further offence; they'd simply not kept to the conditions of their supervision. Now, if I had managed to succeed all those years ago in getting the probation service into the hands of this National Assembly, I cannot imagine for a moment that we would have contemplated an outcome in which women were taken away from their families, with all the damage we know that had done, for not committing an offence, but for simply not observing the rules that the probation service is currently obliged to operate under.

So, yes, we would have a more joined-up system in a practical sense, but we would have a different sense of purpose for the system as well, and we'd be able to make that part of the purpose of the system right through it so that every aspect of the system was operating in the direction that we would want to see it operate, and the report gives us that opportunity.

Finally, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. The report refers to a number of matters. We heard reference to substance misuse, homelessness, perhaps education and health as well, which relate to devolved services. You've also made reference to a number of non-devolved matters, such as probation services, but we know that they're being reintegrated with the prison system, and the proposals of the UK Government recognise the devolution factor in the design of new systems. We already know that the UK Government has agreed with the Welsh Government that we don't need more women's prisons, we need community centres. Of course, we all support at least one of those being in Wales. We already know that the UK Government is moving to longer minimum sentences, recognising that short sentences damage rehabilitation and often criminalise people who might otherwise find a way to a more independent and happy life.

My concern, therefore, is that the report seems to focus to a large extent, or to a significant extent, on policies of Governments here and there, which come and go—Governments go, policies come and go—rather than focusing on whether, for all time, in perpetuity, the constitutional principle of the devolution of criminal justice would create a fairer, more just system for everybody, despite the fact that Governments and policies will change over time. It's a different and more political aspect. I wonder if you'd comment on, therefore, the need to focus on that constitutional issue in perpetuity, rather than our views of current or future Government policies or parties in Government.

Perhaps the elephant in the room, again, for me is the cross-border nature of crime and justice in Wales. It's always been thus. It's nothing new—it's no threat to nationhood, good or bad, it's a reality that most crime in Wales travels on a west-east axis and that crime measurement, support and intervention has always been therefore developed on that basis. How, therefore, do you respond to the fact that I can only find one reference in the report to any cross-border criminality, in the context of county lines, along the M4 corridor and north Wales? And the solution it proposes is joint working across the four Welsh forces in collaboration with other agencies, but no reference to partners across the board. How, therefore, again, do you respond to the reality that North Wales Police report increased collaboration with Merseyside and Cheshire forces on fire arms, intelligence, custody, property, forensics, and that they even share their regional organised crime unit with neighbouring forces, which is located in Warrington? So, how do we reconcile that reality, which has nothing to do with nationality or national identity, but simply demographics, geography and history, that we have that east-west movement?

And my final question is in response to something you mentioned earlier regarding the US system, and, if it works there effectively, why couldn't it work here. Of course, the US has an integrated network of criminal justice systems at federal and state level. The federal Government in Washington and the individual state Governments oversee various aspects of criminal justice and, in that context, if we are going to evolve into a more effective system that recognises the more federalised and federalising nature of the UK, do we not also need to look to more of a networked system, recognising tiered interventions, rather than simply trying to draw lines between systems according to where national borders lie?

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

Dirprwy Lywydd, can I welcome what Mark Isherwood said at the beginning about his party's support for the approach to women's imprisonment that this Government has adopted and worked with some of his colleagues in London on as well? We welcomed David Gauke's, when he was the Secretary of State at the Ministry for Justice, policy of abolishing short sentences of imprisonment. I fear, Dirprwy Lywydd, that, in the way that Mark Isherwood said policies come and go, this policy may have come and may already be going under the next occupant of the Ministry of Justice.

Mark Isherwood asked me about the constitutional argument, and I think, for me, it's always been relatively simple, really: decisions that affect only people in Wales should be made only by people in Wales. Given that these are decisions we're talking about that affect people who are in Wales, then the devolution of those services to be made by people elected to this National Assembly seems to me entirely consistent with that basic constitutional principle.

I don't myself believe that the cross-border issue is quite the showstopper that some Members here are trying to suggest. Even in a service as wholly devolved as the health service, we have a burns unit in Singleton hospital that is a regional resource that serves the south-west of England as well. It is perfectly possible, even when matters are devolved, to have proper collaboration and to work with others in pursuit of common ambitions, and I'm sure that we would be able to do that. The report actually deals with cross-border issues far more extensively, I think, than simply its county lines observation. It deals with the whole business of appointments of justices, how solicitors are qualified on an England-and-Wales basis; it regularly attends to cross-border issues.

But, in the constructive spirit that this discussion has been conducted, I'll end by thanking Mark Isherwood for the points he made at the end about the way in which different constitutional formats inside the United Kingdom would require us to look differently at how some of these cross-border matters would be resolved, and look forward to going on working with Members in all parts of the Chamber in order to make the most we can of this landmark report.

Thank you very much, First Minister.