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.