English: Bethan, thank you very, very much for that indeed. I think many of the detailed issues that we're starting to touch on now we can get into as the consultation goes forward, but I'll try and answer some of them now as well, if it's of help. It's worth saying as well that, genuinely, I would like to engage with all Assembly Members of all parties on this, so that we do get this right in going forward, and that is a genuine offer. If I can do anything to help with those discussions, myself or my officials, I'm happy to make that offer. You made the point about not punishing well-meaning parents. It's a similar point that Angela made as well. Absolutely right; entirely right. The balance of this, as we go through the consultation, has got to get to that point where we take away this defence of reasonable chastisement, which, to the best of my knowledge, has only had the possibility of being cited, actually, in the defence of cases over the last few years, probably a dozen times. Actually, it came down to four of them where it could actually have been used, and in those four cases, by and large, they ended up in acquittal or dismissal of the case. So, it is an anomalous situation that doesn't actually normally come to anything within a court of law, but it is an anomaly that sits there. When you speak to front-line professionals working in things like Flying Start, Families First, doing those interventions - good, clever, early interventions with parents - I've literally had this conversation with them and said, 'Is this clarity that we would give with this a problem for you, or would it help?' And, to a person, to a woman - because it's all women that I've spoken to who are doing these front-line interventions with families - they've said, 'This gives us the clarity that we would need.' So, in addition to the positive parenting, the help and advice and support that we give to parents, we can now say, 'Look, by the way, it is not physical punishment; there are other ways, and you know we can do that', and on we go. It is not to punish well-meaning parents, but it is to make absolutely clear that there will be no defence of reasonable chastisement. Nothing changes, by the way, in terms of what penalties are out there. You mentioned the issue of penalties. The penalties remain as they are for assault, and the same evidential tests and public interest tests apply to assault. The Sentencing Council set the guidelines for assault. The Sentencing Council actually set separate guidelines that relate to assault on children. They also set separate guidelines that relate to assault on children by parents who are under 18. Those are all there. Nothing changes with that at all, but it takes away reasonable chastisement being used as a defence for assault against a child. You asked, quite understandably, what has changed. I think there has been a period of pulling together evidence to show, one, that we can actually proceed and we can do it on a legally sound basis; but, secondly, gathering that world-wide evidence that now shows what works in terms of positive parenting, the negative impacts in aggregate across children who do receive physical punishment, and, also, legal advice as well - getting to that point where legal counsel can suggest - . By the way, I have to be quite honest: this is not that this would not be legally challenged, because it could well be. But, what we have to get right in terms of proportionality is that the rights of the child, which are universal and are unqualified rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are also balanced against those articles of European rights that defend the rights of the family and the rights of religion. But, there is a way to do that because those two sets of rights - the latter two - are qualified rights. If you can show that the measures here are both necessary and proportionate, as we have done before in other policy areas, you can actually impact upon those qualified rights, if the rights of the child in protecting those children are there in the primary purpose. Do we have evidence of behavioural change and attitudinal change? Yes. Again, I won't recite what's within the document, but I hope that all parents, and guardians and carers, as well as organisations, go and look at this document. We have tried to put in there quite a substantial amount of the best available knowledge that we have. But, yes, attitudes in Wales are changing and attitudes in the UK are changing. What's significant is, where this approach has been taken in other countries, of actually making clear that you cannot physically or corporally assault a child, it has itself effected a change by the sheer significance of saying, 'No doubt, no ifs and buts.' It has effected a change itself, so that the attitudes towards corporal and physical punishment have changed as a result of introducing this law. It's a bit like the seat belts law or other laws like it. Finally, you mentioned the point there of effective use of current resources. It's vital, to make this work, that we see what we are doing currently on the ground. Again, I won't recite it chapter and verse, but they are laid out in here: everything between health interventions, education interventions, Flying Start, Families First, Children First areas and so on. Are we making sure that, across the piste, we are giving the right support to the right parents and the right families in the right circumstances very early on, so that we actually avoid getting to the situation where children are being physically punished? Thank you for the questions. I know we will return to more of these in detail as this goes through, but I would also invite Members to engage with me as this consultation goes forward, so I can hear more views like that.
Welsh: Bethan, diolch yn fawr iawn am hynny yn wir. Rwy'n meddwl bod llawer o'r materion manwl yr ydym yn dechrau cyffwrdd arnyn nhw nawr yn rhai y gallwn roi mwy o sylw iddynt wrth i'r ymgynghoriad fwrw ymlaen, ond gwnaf geisio ateb rhai ohonyn nhw nawr hefyd, os yw o gymorth. Mae'n werth dweud hefyd, o ddifrif, yr hoffwn ymgysylltu â holl Aelodau'r Cynulliad o bob plaid ar hyn, fel ein bod yn cael hyn yn iawn ar gyfer y dyfodol, ac mae hwnnw'n gynnig diffuant. Os gallaf wneud unrhyw beth i helpu gyda'r trafodaethau hynny, fi neu fy swyddogion, rwy'n hapus i wneud y cynnig. Gwnaethoch y pwynt ynghylch peidio â chosbi rhieni â bwriadau da. Gwnaeth Angela bwynt tebyg yn ogystal. Hollol gywir; cwbl gywir. Wrth inni fynd drwy'r ymgynghoriad, mae'n rhaid inni daro'r cydbwysedd o gael gwared ar yr amddiffyniad hwn o gosb resymol, sydd, hyd eithaf fy ngwybodaeth, ond wedi bod yn bosibl ei ddyfynnu, mewn gwirionedd, wrth amddiffyn achosion dros y rhai blynyddoedd diwethaf, fwy na thebyg ddwsin o weithiau. Mewn gwirionedd, yn y pen draw dim ond mewn pedwar ohonynt y gellid wir ei ddefnyddio, ac yn y pedwar achos hynny, ar y cyfan, cafwyd yr unigolyn yn ddieuog neu gwrthodwyd yr achos. Felly, mae'n sefyllfa anarferol nad yw wir fel arfer yn arwain at ddim byd mewn llys, ond mae'n sefyllfa anarferol sy'n bodoli. Pan fyddwch yn siarad â gweithwyr proffesiynol rheng flaen sy'n gweithio mewn pethau fel Dechrau'n Deg, Teuluoedd yn Gyntaf, yn gwneud yr ymyriadau hynny - ymyriadau cynnar, doeth, da gyda rhieni - rwyf yn llythrennol wedi cael y sgwrs hon â nhw a dweud, 'Ydy'r eglurder y byddem yn ei roi gyda hyn yn broblem ichi, ynteu a fyddai'n helpu?' Ac mae pob un, pob menyw - oherwydd menywod yw pawb yr wyf wedi siarad â nhw sy'n gwneud yr ymyriadau rheng flaen hyn gyda theuluoedd - wedi dweud, 'Mae hyn yn rhoi'r eglurder y byddai ei angen inni.' Felly, yn ogystal â'r rhianta cadarnhaol, y cymorth a'r cyngor a'r gefnogaeth yr ydym yn eu rhoi i rieni, gallwn nawr ddweud, 'Edrychwch, gyda llaw, nid cosbi corfforol yw hyn; mae yna ffyrdd eraill, ac rydych chi'n gwybod y gallwn wneud hynny', ac rydym yn mynd ymlaen. Nid er mwyn cosbi rhieni â bwriadau da, ond i'w gwneud yn gwbl glir na fydd amddiffyniad o gosb resymol. Does dim byd yn newid, gyda llaw, o ran pa gosbau sydd ar gael. Soniasoch am fater cosbau. Mae'r cosbau yn aros fel y maent ar gyfer ymosodiad, ac mae'r un profion tystiolaethol a phrofion lles y cyhoedd yn gymwys i ymosodiad. Y Cyngor Dedfrydu sy'n gosod canllawiau ar gyfer ymosodiad. Mae'r Cyngor Dedfrydu, a dweud y gwir, yn gosod canllawiau ar wahân sy'n ymwneud ag ymosodiad ar blant. Maent hefyd yn gosod canllawiau ar wahân sy'n ymwneud ag ymosodiad ar blant gan rieni sydd o dan 18 oed. Mae'r rheini i gyd yno. Does dim o hynny'n newid o gwbl, ond mae'n cael gwared ar ddefnyddio cosb resymol fel amddiffyniad am ymosodiadau yn erbyn plentyn. Gwnaethoch chi ofyn, yn hollol ddealladwy, beth sydd wedi newid. Rwy'n meddwl ein bod wedi cael cyfnod o gasglu tystiolaeth i ddangos, un, y gallwn fwrw ymlaen mewn gwirionedd ac y gallwn wneud hynny ar sail gyfreithiol gadarn; ond, yn ail, casglu'r dystiolaeth fyd-eang honno sydd nawr yn dangos beth sy'n gweithio o ran rhianta cadarnhaol, yr effeithiau negyddol cyfanredol ar draws plant sy'n cael cosbau corfforol, a, hefyd, cyngor cyfreithiol hefyd - cyrraedd y pwynt lle gall cyngor cyfreithiol awgrymu - . Gyda llaw, rhaid imi fod yn hollol onest: nid wyf yn dweud na chaiff hyn ei herio'n gyfreithiol, oherwydd gallai hynny ddigwydd. Ond, yr hyn y mae'n rhaid inni ei wneud yn iawn o ran cymesuredd yw bod hawliau plant, sydd yn hawliau cyffredinol a diamod o dan Gonfensiwn y Cenhedloedd Unedig ar hawliau'r plentyn, yn cael eu cydbwyso hefyd yn erbyn yr erthyglau hawliau Ewropeaidd hynny sy'n amddiffyn hawliau'r teulu a hawliau crefydd. Ond, mae ffordd o wneud hynny oherwydd mae'r ddwy gyfres hynny o hawliau - y ddwy olaf - yn hawliau amodol. Os gallwch chi ddangos bod y mesurau hyn yn angenrheidiol ac yn gymesur, fel yr rydym wedi'i wneud cyn hyn mewn meysydd polisi eraill, gallwch wir effeithio ar yr hawliau amodol hynny, os yw hawliau plant o ran amddiffyn y plant hynny yno o fewn y prif ddiben. A oes gennym dystiolaeth o newid agweddau a newid ymddygiad? Oes. Unwaith eto, ni wnaf adrodd yr hyn sydd yn y ddogfen, ond rwy'n gobeithio y bydd pob rhiant, a phob gwarcheidwad a phob gofalwr, yn ogystal â sefydliadau, yn edrych ar y ddogfen hon. Rydym wedi ceisio rhoi cryn dipyn o'r wybodaeth orau sydd ar gael inni ynddi. Ond, ydynt, mae agweddau yng Nghymru'n newid ac mae agweddau yn y DU yn newid. Yr hyn sy'n arwyddocaol yw, lle mae'r dull hwn wedi'i ddefnyddio mewn gwledydd eraill, i'w gwneud yn glir na chewch chi ymosod yn gorfforol ar blentyn, bod hynny ynddo ei hun wedi creu newid oherwydd arwyddocâd pur dweud, 'Dim amheuaeth, dim os nac oni bai.' Mae wedi creu newid ynddo ei hun; mae'r agweddau tuag at gosb gorfforol wedi newid o ganlyniad i gyflwyno'r gyfraith hon. Mae ychydig yn debyg i'r gyfraith gwregysau diogelwch neu gyfreithiau eraill tebyg. Yn olaf, soniasoch am y pwynt yno o ddefnyddio'r adnoddau presennol yn effeithiol. Mae'n hanfodol, i wneud i hyn weithio, ein bod yn gweld beth yr ydym yn ei wneud ar hyn o bryd ar lawr gwlad. Unwaith eto, ni wnaf ei adrodd fesul pennod ac adnod, ond maent wedi'u gosod allan yma: popeth rhwng ymyriadau iechyd, ymyriadau addysg, Dechrau'n Deg, Teuluoedd yn Gyntaf, ardaloedd Plant yn Gyntaf ac ati. A ydym yn gwneud yn siŵr, ar draws y sector, ein bod yn rhoi'r cymorth cywir i'r rhieni cywir a'r teuluoedd cywir o dan yr amgylchiadau cywir yn gynnar iawn, fel ein bod yn osgoi cyrraedd y sefyllfa lle mae plant yn cael eu cosbi'n gorfforol? Diolch am y cwestiynau. Rwy'n gwybod y byddwn yn dychwelyd at fwy o'r rhain yn fanwl wrth fwrw ymlaen â hyn, ond hoffwn hefyd wahodd Aelodau i ymgysylltu â mi wrth i'r ymgynghoriad hwn fwrw ymlaen, fel y gallaf glywed mwy o safbwyntiau fel hwnnw.