English: Thank you for the statement here today. I have to say that I'm disappointed about the part in the statement with regard to the animal offender register here in Wales, especially given that you've made a statement without giving us any background information as to what actually happened as part of that review. I'm particularly disappointed to read that you think that, because there's a lack of UK-based evidence, that's something that cannot be then progressed. There's plenty of international evidence, and I wonder what work has been done in that regard. For example, there's a state-wide open register in Tennessee; in New York, there's a closed register for pet shops and animal sanctuaries and they must reference this before selling or passing on animals; Orange county animal register - again, in America - is maintained by the sheriff's office, and anyone convicted must submit information to that office, and anyone transferring ownership must check registry prior to any change in ownership. I mean, if we haven't got an animal abuse register in any other part of the UK, it'd be difficult to have evidence based on practice because it doesn't exist. That's exactly why people like myself were calling for a Wales-first, so that we could look into this, and also for UK law enforcement agencies to be able to use this particular information to profile people who would potentially abuse animals and then go on to abuse people in real life. I mean, this is really important, and I think it is a real missed opportunity, and I'd like to see the evidence that supports the conclusion. It's really hard to comment without seeing anything today. With regard to various animal welfare codes, you mentioned quite a few in your statement, but you failed to mention the game bird code. When will this be reviewed? In conversations that I've had with the League Against Cruel Sports, this is not monitored at the moment. They would like to meet with you to discuss game bird welfare, so I'm wondering whether you would take up that offer to meet with them, because I feel that it is missing from these codes and it's just as important as codes for horses and for cats. In relation to cross-government work, I can't see anything in this statement in relation to how you're working with the housing sector. I raised with the Minister, Rebecca Evans, the statements that landlords are putting out: 'No pets, no DSS'. We are seeing a rise in landlords that are refusing tenants with pets because, potentially, they've had problems in the past. You say a lot in these statements about how we make people better carers for the pets that they have, but when they do have pets, they're often discriminated against, and those pets are really vital to their mental health, to how they operate in society. And so it's good to say, 'Well, we have to look after the animals' on one stage, but what about how animals can help humans? I think that's something that isn't really in this statement enough here today. I'd also concur with the comments made by Paul Davies in relation to online selling. We are seeing a myriad of different people selling various animals online, and it does seem to be something that isn't regulated, isn't monitored, isn't something that anybody has a handle on. I think the welfare of animals is key here, because people are often breeding animals, they then realise they can't cope and then sell them in these ways that seem easy for them to offload the burden that they see that these animals provide on them, but, also, potentially, they're not doing it in the most ethical way. So, I'd urge you to look at that further too.
Welsh: Diolch ichi am y datganiad yma heddiw. Mae'n rhaid imi ddweud fy mod yn siomedig am y rhan yn y datganiad o ran y gofrestr troseddwyr anifeiliaid yma yng Nghymru, yn arbennig o ystyried eich bod wedi gwneud datganiad heb unrhyw wybodaeth gefndirol inni ynghylch beth ddigwyddodd mewn gwirionedd yn rhan o'r adolygiad hwnnw. Rwy'n arbennig o siomedig o ddarllen y credwch chi, oherwydd nad oes digon o dystiolaeth yn y DU, fod hynny'n rhywbeth na allwn ni wedyn ei ddatblygu. Mae digon o dystiolaeth ryngwladol, a thybed pa waith sydd wedi'i wneud yn hynny o beth. Er enghraifft, mae cofrestr agored talaith gyfan yn Tennessee; yn Efrog Newydd, mae cofrestr gaeedig ar gyfer siopau anifeiliaid anwes a gwarchodfeydd anifeiliaid a rhaid iddynt gyfeirio at hon cyn gwerthu neu drosglwyddo anifeiliaid; mae cofrestr anifeiliaid Orange County - unwaith eto, yn America - yn cael ei chynnal gan Swyddfa'r Siryf, a rhaid i unrhyw un a gollfernir gyflwyno gwybodaeth i'r Swyddfa honno, a rhaid i unrhyw un sy'n trosglwyddo perchenogaeth wirio'r cofrestru cyn unrhyw newid perchnogaeth. Os nad oes gennym ni gofrestr cam-drin anifeiliaid mewn unrhyw ran arall o'r Deyrnas Unedig, byddai'n anodd cael tystiolaeth yn seiliedig ar arfer oherwydd nad yw'n bodoli. Dyna yn union pam roedd pobl fel fi yn galw am un i Gymru yn gyntaf, fel y gallem ni ymchwilio i hyn, a hefyd er mwyn i asiantaethau gorfodi cyfraith y DU allu defnyddio'r wybodaeth benodol hon i greu proffil o bobl a fyddai o bosibl yn cam-drin anifeiliaid ac wedyn yn mynd ymlaen i gam-drin pobl mewn bywyd go iawn. Mae hyn yn bwysig iawn, ac rwy'n credu ei fod yn gyfle gwirioneddol a gollwyd, ac fe hoffwn i weld y dystiolaeth sy'n cefnogi'r casgliad. Mae'n anodd iawn gwneud sylwadau heb weld unrhyw beth heddiw. O ran codau lles anifeiliaid amrywiol, fe wnaethoch chi sôn am rai yn eich datganiad, ond wnaethoch chi ddim sôn am y cod adar hela. Pryd y caiff hwn ei adolygu? Mewn sgyrsiau a gefais gyda'r Gynghrair yn erbyn Chwaraeon Creulon, nid yw hwn yn cael ei fonitro ar hyn o bryd. Byddent yn hoffi cyfarfod â chi i drafod lles adar hela, felly rwy'n meddwl tybed a fyddech yn derbyn y cynnig hwnnw i gwrdd â nhw, oherwydd teimlaf ei fod ar goll o'r codau hyn ac mae'n rhywbeth sydd yr un mor bwysig â chodau ar gyfer ceffylau a chathod. O ran gwaith traws-lywodraethol, ni allaf weld unrhyw beth yn y datganiad hwn ynglŷn â sut yr ydych chi'n gweithio gyda'r sector tai. Soniais wrth y Gweinidog, Rebecca Evans, am y datganiadau y mae landlordiaid yn eu cyflwyno: 'Dim anifeiliaid anwes, dim DSS'. Rydym ni'n gweld cynnydd mewn landlordiaid sy'n gwrthod tenantiaid ag anifeiliaid anwes oherwydd, o bosib, eu bod wedi cael problemau yn y gorffennol. Rydych chi'n dweud llawer yn y datganiadau hyn ynghylch sut y mae gwneud pobl yn well gofalwyr ar gyfer yr anifeiliaid anwes sydd ganddynt, ond pan mae ganddynt anifeiliaid anwes, gwahaniaethir yn eu herbyn yn aml, ac mae'r anifeiliaid anwes hynny yn wirioneddol hanfodol i'w iechyd meddwl, i sut y maent yn gweithredu mewn cymdeithas. Ac felly mae'n dda dweud, 'Wel, rhaid inni ofalu am yr anifeiliaid' ar un llaw, ond beth am sut y gall anifeiliaid helpu bodau dynol? Credaf fod hynny'n rhywbeth nad yw mewn gwirionedd yn cael digon o sylw yn y datganiad hwn heddiw. Cytunaf hefyd â'r sylwadau a wnaed gan Paul Davies o ran gwerthu ar-lein. Rydym yn gweld llu o wahanol bobl yn gwerthu anifeiliaid amrywiol ar-lein, ac ymddengys fod hyn yn rhywbeth nad yw cael ei reoleiddio, nad yw'n cael ei fonitro, nad yw'n rhywbeth y mae gan unrhyw un reolaeth arno. Mae lles anifeiliaid yn allweddol yn hyn o beth, gan fod pobl yn aml yn bridio anifeiliaid, yna maen nhw'n sylweddoli na allan nhw ymdopi ac yna maen nhw yn eu gwerthu yn y ffyrdd hyn sy'n ymddangos i fod yn hawdd iddyn nhw gael gwared ar y baich y maen nhw'n ystyried bod yr anifeiliaid hyn yn ei roi arnynt, ond, hefyd, o bosib, nid ydynt yn gwneud hynny yn y modd mwyaf moesegol. Felly, anogaf chi i edrych ar hynny ymhellach hefyd.