English: There are numerous examples of animal abuse registers in the US, where two different models are used. The first is an open register, such as in Tennessee, when information on the convicted individual is published online including their photograph, name, address and date of birth. The other is a private register, such as in New York City, which is only available to certain organisations, such as animal shelters and those who sell animals. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation operates a number of registers: a sex offender register, a drug offender register, an abuse register and an animal abuse register. This animal abuse register is operated state-wide under a Tennessee state law, the animal abuse registration Act. It is the first publicly accessible register in the United States. Since January this year, it has posted the following information: the offender's name, address, date of birth and type of offence. It does not include social security number, drivers' licence number or any other identification number. The information is held on the register for two years for a first offence, and this increases to five years for a second offence. A 'Huffington Post' article noted that by hosting the register on its existing website, the TBI incurred no significant cost with the introduction of this legislation. There are open registers in Albany county and Orange county, both in New York state. The online open register in Albany county is maintained by an animal shelter, the Mohawk Hudson Humane Society, as a service to the public. As such, there is no cost to the taxpayer. Anyone who is convicted of animal cruelty in the county of Albany after January 2012 is required to submit information to the Albany county sheriff's department, and update it annually. That information is then passed to the shelter. Its website says: 'Anyone selling, giving away or adopting an animal to another person in Albanymust check the registry prior to any change in ownership. Giving, selling or adopting an animal to a person on the registry is a violation of county law.' The Orange county animal abuse register was created in 2015 by an Act of Orange county legislature, known as Rocky's law, after a dog had to be put down after being left out in the snow without food and water for five weeks while his owner went on holiday. This is maintained by the sheriff's office, and anyone convicted of animal cruelty who resides in that county is required to submit their information to the Orange county sheriff's office and this is then put online. They're also charged a fee of $125. The law requires that anyone transferring ownership of an animal for payment or otherwise must check the Orange County animal abuse registry prior to any change in ownership. Giving, selling or allowing adoption of an animal to a person in this area is a violation of county law. In New York, the Animal Abuse Registration Act 2014 requires anyone living in New York City who is convicted of an animal abuse crime to register with the city health department, from where they will be added to the NYC animal abuse registry. The information it holds is considerably more than what is required for the Tennessee open register, including a description of the crime, drivers' license, height, weight, ethnicity and eye colour of that person. However, the registry is only accessible by those organisations named under the Act. The legislation sets out which types of animal-related businesses are legally required to check it and refuse to sell or transfer ownership of an animal to anyone listed in the registry. This include pet shops, animal shelters and vets in New York. Over 20 Bills establishing animal abuse registers have been introduced across America, including Illinois, Maryland, Rhode Island and California. In Colorado, a Bill for an open register was rejected on the grounds of cost. However, having taken through legislation myself, cost in itself is not reason enough to deter its progress; it has to have purpose. Cost only becomes an issue when that purpose cannot be established, or if there's a lack of will. I see an animal abuse register for Wales as having two purposes. The first is to demonstrate to offenders and would-be offenders that there's going to be another consequence to their criminal behaviour; that we begin to move, as a society, towards making it abundantly clear that abuse of animals is beyond the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, in the same way as various forms of prejudice are considered far more unacceptable than they were years ago. Of course, we cannot say that prejudice has been completely eradicated, but it is moving in the right way. And that is the point here. At the moment, animal abusers seem more likely to be shamed and censured on social media than they are through legal remedy. We need a deterrent. The House of Commons inquiry also identified another issue concerning animal abuse: that it is very difficult to track those who've been banned from keeping animals. An accessible register could play an important role in protecting animals and prevent abusers from accessing animals, it found. And it looked to recommending further work on the issue. I did say earlier that there is another dimension to this debate. The Links Group, an organisation that includes the NSPCC, the RSPCA and the Women's Aid Federation of England, produced work that said that there is increased research and clinical evidence that suggests that there are sometimes links between the abuse of children, vulnerable adults and animals, and that 'a better understanding of these links can help to protect victims, both human and animal, and promote their welfare.' It found that if a child is cruel to animals, this may be an indicator that serious neglect and abuse had been inflicted on that child. While recent research in the UK suggests that animal abuse by children is quite widespread, in a minority of more extreme cases, it appears to be associated with abuse of children, or subsequent abusive behaviour by the child. Where serious animal abuse has occurred in a household, there may be an increased likelihood that some other form of family violence is occurring, and that any children present may also be at an increased risk of abuse. Acts of animal abuse may, in some circumstances, be to coerce, control and intimidate women and children to remain in or be silent about their abusive situation. The threat or actual abuse of a pet can prevent women leaving situations of domestic violence. Sustained childhood cruelty to animals has been linked to an increased likelihood of violent offending behaviour against humans in adulthood. If a child exhibits extreme aggressive or sexualised behaviour towards animals, this may, in some cases, be associated with later abuse of other children or vulnerable adults, unless the behaviour is recognised and treated. There is no doubt that these last two points are important where law enforcement is concerned. For some time, it has been known that many serial killers and other serious criminals began their journey with animal abuse. In fact, the FBI in America uses it as part of criminal profiling. I cannot, for one moment, think that any police force in Wales would not find such a register of use to them in detecting crime, and I would argue that all law enforcement agencies should be given access to such a register. One of the concerns surrounding such a register is how we would define abuse, and decide who should go on it and who shouldn't. For me, it seems quite simple. If someone has been convicted - not accused, convicted - of animal cruelty, then, their name should go on that register. It would be for existing law, which does have its weaknesses, in my opinion, to ascertain the guilt or otherwise of those accused of such crimes. Before tabling this debate, I took advice and made sure that it was within our competence entirely. As you know, this Assembly has powers to legislate on matters of animal welfare, but initially, I had wondered whether we were in that grey area slot, such as we saw with the agricultural wages Order or the UK Government's trade union Bill, where no-one was quite sure where the line of competency lay. But it is a great deal more straightforward than that, because there is no involvement in the criminal justice system, and it would need to be convicted before anyone entered into the register. So establishing such a register does not fall outside of our competency. In June this year - while I don't always agree with the DUP - the Northern Ireland Assembly supported a call from the DUP to establish an accessible register of those convicted of animal cruelty offences. At the time, the Minister said that he was interested in the idea, because although the police already has a list of such people, there was an argument for making it available to other relevant organisations. I'd also like to thank, finally, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs for responding in a similarly positive way to my question on 12 October about animal abuse registers here. The Cabinet Secretary said, and I quote, 'I haven't considered introducing legislation. We are looking at the different codes of practice we have for different animals, and certainly it's something that I've asked the chief veterinary officer and officials to monitor. But I'm very happy to look at the point you raised; I think that's a very interesting point about, as you say, perpetrators with animals.' So, I'm very much looking forward to what the Welsh Government has to say on this matter and to seek to move forward on this debate. It won't surprise you that I've had a wealth of interest from across the world, actually, in this debate here today. I think people have a very close and important relationship with their pets, be it because it keeps them company if they feel isolated, or it's part of a family environment. It's something that we then feel is an extension of how we treat other people in our lives also in relation to how, then, we treat animals. So, I would like to thank everybody who's given me their experiences via e-mail from all the different countries that have contacted me. I hope that Wales can be first in putting forward this register in the UK. Diolch yn fawr.
Welsh: Ceir enghreifftiau niferus o gofrestri cam-drin anifeiliaid yn yr Unol Daleithiau, lle y defnyddir dau fodel gwahanol. Cofrestr agored yw'r cyntaf, megis yn Tennessee, pan fo gwybodaeth am yr unigolyn a gafwyd yn euog yn cael ei gyhoeddi ar-lein gan gynnwys eu ffotograff, eu henw, eu cyfeiriad a'u dyddiad geni. Cofrestr breifat yw'r llall, megis yn Ninas Efrog Newydd, sydd ond ar gael i sefydliadau penodol, fel llochesi anifeiliaid a'r rhai sy'n gwerthu anifeiliaid. Mae Biwro Ymchwilio Tennessee yn gweithredu nifer o gofrestri: cofrestr troseddwyr rhyw, cofrestr troseddwyr cyffuriau, cofrestr cam-drin a chofrestr cam-drin anifeiliaid. Mae'r gofrestr cam-drin anifeiliaid yn cael ei gweithredu ar draws y dalaith o dan un o ddeddfau talaith Tennessee, y Ddeddf cofrestru cam-drin anifeiliaid. Dyma'r gofrestr gyntaf i fod ar gael i'r cyhoedd yn yr Unol Daleithiau. Ers mis Ionawr eleni, mae wedi postio'r wybodaeth ganlynol: enw'r troseddwr, cyfeiriad, dyddiad geni a'r math o drosedd. Nid yw'n cynnwys rhif nawdd cymdeithasol, rhif trwydded yrru nac unrhyw rif adnabod arall. Cedwir y wybodaeth ar y gofrestr am ddwy flynedd am drosedd gyntaf, ac mae'n codi i bum mlynedd am ail drosedd. Nododd erthygl yn 'Huffington Post' nad oedd Biwro Ymchwilio Tennessee, gyda chyflwyno'r ddeddfwriaeth hon, yn wynebu cost sylweddol am gynnal y gofrestr ar ei wefan bresennol. Ceir cofrestri agored yn sir Albany a sir Orange, y ddwy yn nhalaith Efrog Newydd. Mae'r gofrestr agored ar-lein yn sir Albany yn cael ei chynnal gan loches anifeiliaid, Cymdeithas Ddyngarol Mohawk Hudson, fel gwasanaeth i'r cyhoedd. Fel y cyfryw, nid oes unrhyw gost i'r trethdalwr. Mae angen i unrhyw un a geir yn euog o greulondeb i anifeiliaid yn sir Albany ar ôl mis Ionawr 2012 gyflwyno gwybodaeth i adran y siryf sir Albany, a'i diweddaru bob blwyddyn. Yna, caiff y wybodaeth honno ei throsglwyddo i'r lloches. Dywed ei wefan: Dylai unrhyw un sy'n gwerthu anifail, rhoi anifail neu fabwysiadu anifail i berson arall yn Albany archwilio'r gofrestr cyn unrhyw newid mewn perchnogaeth. Mae rhoi, gwerthu neu fabwysiadu anifail i berson ar y gofrestr yn groes i gyfraith y sir. Crëwyd cofrestr cam-drin anifeiliaid sir Orange yn 2015 gan Ddeddf a elwir yn Ddeddf Rocky yn neddfwrfa sir Orange, ar ôl gorfod difa ci a oedd wedi'i adael allan yn yr eira heb fwyd a dŵr am bum wythnos tra oedd ei berchennog ar wyliau. Caiff y gofrestr ei chadw yn swyddfa'r siryf, ac mae'n ofynnol i unrhyw un sy'n byw yn y sir a geir yn euog o greulondeb i anifeiliaid gyflwyno eu gwybodaeth i swyddfa'r siryf sir Orange, ac yna caiff ei rhoi ar-lein. Codir ffi o $125 arnynt hefyd. Mae'r ddeddf yn mynnu bod yn rhaid i unrhyw un sy'n trosglwyddo perchnogaeth anifail am dâl neu fel arall archwilio cofrestr cam-drin anifeiliaid sir Orange cyn unrhyw newid perchnogaeth. Mae rhoi, gwerthu neu ganiatáu mabwysiadu anifail i berson yn yr ardal yn groes i gyfraith y sir. Yn Efrog Newydd, mae Deddf Cofrestru Cam-drin Anifeiliaid 2014 yn ei gwneud yn ofynnol i unrhyw un sy'n byw yn Ninas Efrog Newydd a geir yn euog o drosedd cam-drin anifeiliaid gofrestru gydag adran iechyd y ddinas, ble y cânt eu hychwanegu at gofrestr cam-drin anifeiliaid Dinas Efrog Newydd. Mae'r wybodaeth sydd arni gryn dipyn yn fwy na'r hyn sydd ei angen ar gyfer cofrestr agored Tennessee, gan gynnwys disgrifiad o'r drosedd, trwydded gyrwyr, taldra, pwysau, ethnigrwydd a lliw llygaid y person hwnnw. Fodd bynnag, y sefydliadau hynny a enwir o dan y Ddeddf yn unig sy'n cael gweld y gofrestr. Mae'r ddeddfwriaeth yn nodi pa fath o fusnesau'n ymwneud ag anifeiliaid y mae'n ofynnol yn gyfreithiol iddynt archwilio'r gofrestr a gwrthod gwerthu neu drosglwyddo perchnogaeth anifail i unrhyw un a restrir ar y gofrestr. Mae hyn yn cynnwys siopau anifeiliaid anwes, llochesi anifeiliaid a milfeddygon yn Efrog Newydd. Mae dros 20 o Filiau'n sefydlu cofrestri cam-drin anifeiliaid wedi cael eu cyflwyno ar draws America, gan gynnwys Illinois, Maryland, Rhode Island a California. Yn Colorado, gwrthodwyd Bil ar gyfer cofrestr agored ar sail y gost. Fodd bynnag, ar ôl cyflwyno deddfwriaeth fy hun, nid yw cost ynddi'i hun yn ddigon o reswm i'w hatal rhag cael ei chyflwyno; mae'n rhaid cael pwrpas. Nid yw cost ond yn dod yn broblem pan na ellir sefydlu beth yw'r pwrpas hwnnw, neu os oes diffyg ewyllys. Rwy'n gweld dau bwrpas i gofrestr cam-drin anifeiliaid i Gymru. Y cyntaf yw dangos i droseddwyr a darpar droseddwyr y bydd canlyniad arall i'w hymddygiad troseddol; ein bod yn dechrau symud, fel cymdeithas, tuag at ei gwneud yn gwbl glir bod cam-drin anifeiliaid y tu hwnt i ffiniau ymddygiad derbyniol, yn yr un modd ag y mae gwahanol fathau o ragfarn yn cael eu hystyried yn llawer mwy annerbyniol nag yr oeddent flynyddoedd yn ôl. Wrth gwrs, ni allwn ddweud bod rhagfarn wedi cael ei ddileu yn gyfan gwbl, ond mae'n symud i'r cyfeiriad iawn. A dyna'r pwynt yma. Ar hyn o bryd, mae pobl sy'n cam-drin anifeiliaid i'w gweld yn fwy tebygol o gael eu cywilyddio a'u ceryddu ar gyfryngau cymdeithasol nag y maent drwy ateb cyfreithiol. Mae angen arf ataliol. Hefyd, nododd ymchwiliad Tŷ'r Cyffredin fater arall sy'n ymwneud â cham-drin anifeiliaid: ei bod yn anodd iawn olrhain y rhai sydd wedi cael eu gwahardd rhag cadw anifeiliaid. Gwelodd y gallai cofrestr hygyrch chwarae rhan bwysig yn diogelu anifeiliaid ac atal camdrinwyr rhag dod i gysylltiad ag anifeiliaid. Ac roedd yn argymell gwaith pellach ar y mater hwn. Fe ddywedais yn gynharach fod dimensiwn arall i'r ddadl hon. Cynhyrchodd Links Group, sefydliad sy'n cynnwys yr NSPCC, RSPCA a Ffederasiwn Cymorth i Fenywod Lloegr, waith sy'n dweud bod yna fwy o ymchwil a thystiolaeth glinigol sy'n awgrymu bod cysylltiadau weithiau rhwng cam-drin plant, oedolion sy'n agored i niwed ac anifeiliaid, ac y gallai gwell dealltwriaeth o'r cysylltiadau hyn helpu i ddiogelu dioddefwyr, yn bobl ac anifeiliaid, a hybu eu lles. Os yw plentyn yn greulon i anifeiliaid, canfu'r gwaith y gallai fod yn arwydd fod y plentyn hwnnw wedi dioddef esgeulustod a cham-drin difrifol. Er bod ymchwil diweddar yn y DU yn awgrymu bod cam-drin anifeiliaid gan blant yn eithaf cyffredin, mewn lleiafrif o achosion mwy eithafol, mae'n ymddangos ei fod yn gysylltiedig â cham-drin plant, neu ymddygiad camdriniol dilynol gan y plentyn. Lle y cafodd anifail ei gam-drin yn ddifrifol mewn cartref, efallai y bydd mwy o debygolrwydd fod rhyw fath arall o drais teuluol yn digwydd, ac y gallai unrhyw blant sy'n bresennol hefyd fod mewn mwy o berygl o gael eu cam-drin. Gall gweithredoedd o gam-drin anifeiliaid, mewn rhai amgylchiadau, gynnwys gorfodi, rheoli a dychryn menywod a phlant i aros yn eu sefyllfa gamdriniol neu i beidio â dweud wrth neb. Gall cam-drin neu fygwth cam-drin anifail anwes atal menywod rhag gadael sefyllfaoedd o drais domestig. Mae creulondeb cyson i anifeiliaid mewn plentyndod wedi'i gysylltu â thebygolrwydd cynyddol o ymddygiad troseddol treisgar yn erbyn pobl pan fyddant yn oedolion. Os yw plentyn yn arddangos ymddygiad ymosodol neu rywioledig eithafol tuag at anifeiliaid, gallai hyn, mewn rhai achosion, fod yn gysylltiedig â cham-drin plant eraill neu oedolion agored i niwed yn nes ymlaen, oni bai bod yr ymddygiad yn cael ei adnabod a'i drin. Nid oes amheuaeth fod y ddau bwynt olaf yn bwysig mewn perthynas â gorfodi'r gyfraith. Ers peth amser, gwyddys bod llawer o lofruddwyr cyfresol a throseddwyr difrifol eraill wedi dechrau eu taith gyda cham-drin anifeiliaid. Yn wir, mae'r FBI yn America yn ei ddefnyddio'n rhan o waith proffilio troseddol. Ni allaf gredu am eiliad y byddai unrhyw heddlu yng Nghymru yn ystyried na fyddai cofrestr o'r fath o ddefnydd iddynt wrth iddynt fynd ati i ddatrys trosedd, a buaswn yn dadlau y dylai pob asiantaeth gorfodi'r gyfraith gael gweld cofrestr o'r fath. Un o'r pryderon ynglŷn â chofrestr o'r fath yw sut y byddem yn diffinio cam-drin, ac yn penderfynu pwy ddylai fynd arni a phwy na ddylai. I mi, mae'n ymddangos yn eithaf syml. Os yw rhywun wedi ei gael yn euog - nid ei gyhuddo, ond ei gael yn euog - o greulondeb i anifeiliaid, yna, dylai eu henw fynd ar y gofrestr honno. Mater i'r gyfraith bresennol, sydd â'i gwendidau yn fy marn i, fyddai pennu euogrwydd neu fel arall y rhai a gyhuddir o droseddau o'r fath. Cyn cyflwyno'r ddadl hon, cefais gyngor a gwneuthum yn siŵr ei fod o fewn ein cymhwysedd yn gyfan gwbl. Fel y gwyddoch, mae gan y Cynulliad hwn bwerau i ddeddfu ar faterion lles anifeiliaid, ond i ddechrau, roeddwn wedi meddwl tybed a oeddem yn y man llwyd hwnnw, fel y gwelsom gyda'r Gorchymyn cyflogau amaethyddol neu Fil undebau llafur Llywodraeth y DU, lle nad oedd neb yn hollol siŵr lle y mae'r ffin cymhwysedd. Ond mae'n llawer symlach na hynny, gan nad oes unrhyw gysylltiad â'r system cyfiawnder troseddol, a byddai angen i rywun gael ei ddyfarnu'n euog cyn cael ei gofnodi ar y gofrestr. Felly nid yw sefydlu cofrestr o'r fath y tu allan i'n cymhwysedd. Ym mis Mehefin eleni - er nad wyf bob amser yn cytuno gyda Phlaid yr Unoliaethwyr Democrataidd - cefnogodd Cynulliad Gogledd Iwerddon alwad gan Blaid yr Unoliaethwyr Democrataidd i sefydlu cofrestr hygyrch o'r rhai a gafwyd yn euog o droseddau creulondeb anifeiliaid. Ar y pryd, dywedodd y Gweinidog fod ganddo ddiddordeb yn y syniad, oherwydd er bod gan yr heddlu restr o bobl o'r fath, roedd dadl dros iddi fod ar gael i sefydliadau perthnasol eraill. Hoffwn ddiolch hefyd, yn olaf, i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros yr Amgylchedd a Materion Gwledig am ymateb mewn modd cadarnhaol tebyg i fy nghwestiwn ar 12 Hydref am gofrestri cam-drin anifeiliaid yma. Dywedodd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, a dyfynnaf, 'Nid wyf wedi ystyried cyflwyno deddfwriaeth. Rydym yn edrych ar y gwahanol godau ymarfer sydd gennym ar gyfer gwahanol anifeiliaid, ac yn sicr mae'n rhywbeth rwyf wedi gofyn i'r prif swyddog milfeddygol a swyddogion ei fonitro. Ond rwy'n fwy na pharod i edrych ar y pwynt a grybwyllwyd gennych; credaf ei fod yn bwynt diddorol iawn, fel y dywedwch, ynglŷn â thramgwyddwyr gydag anifeiliaid.' Felly, rwy'n edrych ymlaen yn fawr at yr hyn sydd gan Lywodraeth Cymru i'w ddweud ar y mater hwn ac i geisio symud y ddadl hon yn ei blaen. Ni fydd yn syndod i chi fod llawer iawn o ddiddordeb wedi'i ddangos o bob cwr o'r byd, mewn gwirionedd, yn y ddadl hon yma heddiw. Rwy'n credu bod gan bobl berthynas agos a phwysig iawn gyda'u hanifeiliaid anwes, boed hynny am eu bod yn cadw cwmni iddynt os ydynt yn teimlo'n unig, neu am ei fod yn rhan o'r amgylchedd teuluol. Mae'n rhywbeth y teimlwn ei fod yn estyniad o'r modd rydym yn trin pobl eraill yn ein bywydau hefyd mewn perthynas â sut, felly, rydym yn trin anifeiliaid. Felly, hoffwn ddiolch i bawb sydd wedi anfon eu profiadau ataf drwy e-bost o'r holl wahanol wledydd sydd wedi cysylltu â mi. Rwy'n gobeithio y gall Cymru fod y wlad gyntaf i gyflwyno'r gofrestr hon yn y DU. Diolch yn fawr.