English: Thank you for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. And, firstly, let me say how much I sympathise with all those people, the many, many thousands, who have spoken about their deep concerns about the change in the cervical cancer screening regime. Screening has, of course, become a valuable part of the preventative armoury when it comes to women's health, and many, many lives have been saved through early diagnosis stemming from the screening programme. And the sudden announcement that three-year tests would become five left so many people distressed and worried. And my own reaction, I must say, was one of incredulity: could this really be the result of the current pressures on the NHS, another effect of systems under strain? But, in trying to learn more then about the change, what became apparent is that we are talking not about a downgrading of this invaluable protective health measure, but, in fact, a serious failure to communicate change that is in fact the right change, and one we should celebrate, in fact, as a step forward in preventative healthcare. I'm immensely grateful to those organisations, Cancer Research UK and Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust in particular, for stepping in with explanations of why this is a positive change, why advancements in technology means testing for the HPV virus, which causes the vast majority of cervical cancers, allows for earlier identification of what could ultimately lead to increased risk, early enough in fact to allow five years between testing episodes if no evidence of HPV is found. In the past, screening tested for changes in cells, the beginning of cancer; now we can find earlier signs of what might eventually lead to that and so allow for more timely intervention. Now, can I draw the attention of Members to the statement of opinion I've tabled this week, following discussion with Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust, noting that this week is Cervical Cancer Prevention Week, and expressing again how vital screening is? The statement expresses regret that recent changes to the cervical screening programme - the way they were communicated - have caused anxiety and confusion, and urges Ministers and Public Health Wales to prioritise restoring confidence in the programme through clear and direct communication to answer the concerns that so many have. Now, I've written to the health Minister the week before last, I think, to ask for that direct communication to happen. It has to happen. The handling of this change by Welsh Government and its agencies has caused a great amount of anxiety, and it's up to Government and its agencies to put that right. Now, may this be a real lesson in the importance of getting communication right, and, at the same time, a reminder of the importance of screening. We must encourage more to come forward, so that we can be confident that as many women as possible can be giving themselves the chance of an early diagnosis.
Welsh: Diolch am y cyfle i wneud cyfraniad byr i'r ddadl hon. Ac yn gyntaf, gadewch imi ddweud cymaint rwy'n cydymdeimlo â'r holl bobl, y miloedd lawer, sydd wedi siarad am eu pryderon dwfn am y newid yn y trefniadau sgrinio canser ceg y groth. Mae sgrinio, wrth gwrs, wedi dod yn rhan werthfawr o'r arfogaeth ataliol ym maes iechyd menywod, ac mae llawer o fywydau wedi'u hachub drwy ddiagnosis cynnar yn deillio o'r rhaglen sgrinio. Ac fe achosodd y cyhoeddiad sydyn y byddai profion bob tair blynedd yn newid yn brofion bob pum mlynedd gymaint o ofid a phryder i bobl. A rhaid imi ddweud, fy ymateb i oedd anghrediniaeth: ai dyma ganlyniad y pwysau presennol ar y GIG, canlyniad arall systemau dan straen? Ond wrth geisio dysgu mwy am y newid, yr hyn a ddaeth yn amlwg yw ein bod yn sôn nid am israddio'r mesur diogelu iechyd amhrisiadwy hwn, ond am fethiant difrifol i gyfathrebu newid sy'n newid cywir mewn gwirionedd, a newid y dylem ei ddathlu fel cam ymlaen mewn gofal iechyd ataliol. Rwy'n hynod ddiolchgar i'r sefydliadau, Cancer Research UK ac Ymddiriedolaeth Canser Ceg y Groth Jo yn benodol, am gamu i mewn gydag esboniadau ynglŷn â pham y mae'n newid cadarnhaol, pam y mae datblygiadau mewn technoleg yn golygu bod profi am y feirws HPV, sy'n achosi'r mwyafrif llethol o ganserau serfigol, yn caniatáu inni ganfod yr hyn a allai arwain yn y pen draw at fwy o risg, yn ddigon cynnar mewn gwirionedd i ganiatáu pum mlynedd rhwng profion os na cheir tystiolaeth o HPV. Yn y gorffennol, roedd sgrinio'n edrych am newidiadau mewn celloedd, dechrau canser; yn awr gallwn ddod o hyd i arwyddion cynharach o'r hyn a allai arwain ato yn y pen draw a chaniatáu felly ar gyfer ymyrraeth fwy amserol. Nawr, a gaf fi dynnu sylw'r Aelodau at y datganiad barn a gyflwynais yr wythnos hon, yn dilyn trafodaeth gydag Ymddiriedolaeth Canser Ceg y Groth Jo, i nodi ei bod hi'n Wythnos Atal Canser Ceg y Groth yr wythnos hon, a mynegi eto pa mor hanfodol yw sgrinio? Mae'r datganiad yn mynegi gofid fod newidiadau diweddar i'r rhaglen sgrinio serfigol - y ffordd y cawsant eu cyfathrebu - wedi achosi pryder a dryswch, ac yn annog Gweinidogion ac Iechyd Cyhoeddus Cymru i flaenoriaethu gwaith i adfer hyder yn y rhaglen drwy gyfathrebu clir ac uniongyrchol i ateb y pryderon sydd gan gynifer o bobl. Nawr, rwyf wedi ysgrifennu at y Gweinidog iechyd yr wythnos cyn diwethaf, rwy'n credu, i ofyn i'r cyfathrebu uniongyrchol hwnnw ddigwydd. Mae'n rhaid iddo ddigwydd. Mae'r ffordd yr ymdriniwyd â'r newid hwn gan Lywodraeth Cymru a'i hasiantaethau wedi achosi cryn dipyn o bryder, a mater i'r Llywodraeth a'i hasiantaethau yw unioni hynny. Nawr, gobeithio y bydd hon yn wers go iawn ynglŷn â phwysigrwydd cael cyfathrebu'n iawn, ac ar yr un pryd, gobeithio y bydd yn ein hatgoffa ynghylch pwysigrwydd sgrinio. Rhaid inni annog mwy o bobl i ddod i gael eu sgrinio, fel y gallwn fod yn hyderus y gall cynifer o fenywod â phosibl roi cyfle iddynt eu hunain gael diagnosis cynnar.