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?