English: Now, I understand that many people are concerned that extending the interval between screenings will lead to missing cases of cervical cancer. But I'd like to assure people that HPV causes changes to the cells very slowly over several years, and that means that if there were to be cellular changes, they could be identified early on still in the next screening process. Screening more often than five years after a negative HPV result would be too early usually for any changes to the cells to come to the fore. So, the screening would not be beneficial and it could also give an incorrect reassurance to people. I'm pleased that Wales has led the way, and that we were the first nation in the UK to introduce those screens for high-risk HPV back in 2018. Scotland and England have now introduced those same tests for HPV, and in Scotland, the interval between screenings was extended some time ago, in March 2020. Undoing that change to the interval for those at low risk would be a retrograde step. I acknowledge fully that more regular screening feels as though it would provide that additional reassurance, but, for those low-risk individuals, it doesn't provide the benefits that they would want to see. Extending the interval for those at low risk means that the screening programme can then focus on those high-risk individuals, who will be monitored more closely than in the past. We have to ensure that health services follow the science, and that they are provided only when they provide genuine benefit, and when there is a clinical need for them. So, that is the response to Buffy's comment about using this to talk about other health issues. It's very important that you are careful about how you use clinical interventions. We have to decrease possible harm in terms of providing those unnecessary interventions. Screening programmes need to evolve in response to cancer and developments in science. Just to respond to Jenny Rathbone - .
Welsh: Nawr, dwi'n deall bod llawer o bobl yn poeni y bydd ymestyn y bwlch rhwng profion sgrinio yn arwain at fethu achosion o ganser ceg y groth. Hoffwn i sicrhau pobl fod feirws papilloma dynol yn achosi newidiadau i'r celloedd yn araf dros sawl blwyddyn. Mae hynny'n golygu os oes newidiadau i'r celloedd, bydd modd eu canfod o hyd yn gynnar yn y prawf sgrinio nesaf. Byddai sgrinio'n fwy rheolaidd na phum mlynedd ar ôl canlyniad HPV negatif yn rhy gynnar fel arfer i unrhyw newidiadau i'r celloedd ddod i'r amlwg. Felly, ni fyddai'r sgrinio yn fuddiol a byddai hefyd yn rhoi'r sicrwydd anghywir i bobl. Dwi'n falch bod Cymru wedi arwain y ffordd, ac mai ni oedd y wlad gyntaf yn y Deyrnas Unedig i gyflwyno profion sylfaenol am HPV risg uchel yn 2018. Mae Lloegr a'r Alban bellach wedi cyflwyno profion sylfaenol am HPV, ac yn yr Alban, cafodd y bwlch rhwng profion sgrinio ei ymestyn peth amser yn ôl, ym mis Mawrth 2020. Byddai gwrthdroi'r bwlch ar gyfer sgrinio serfigol i bobl risg isel yn gam yn ôl. Dwi'n cydnabod yn llawn fod sgrinio mwy rheolaidd yn teimlo fel ei bod yn rhoi mwy o sicrwydd, ond, i bobl risg isel, nid yw'n cynnig y buddion y bydden nhw eisiau eu gweld. Mae ymestyn y bwlch i bobl risg isel yn golygu y gall y rhaglen sgrinio ganolbwyntio wedyn ar bobl risg uchel, a fydd yn cael eu monitro yn fwy agos nag o'r blaen. Rhaid inni sicrhau bod gwasanaethau iechyd yn dilyn y wyddoniaeth ac yn cael eu darparu dim ond pan fyddan nhw'n cynnig budd go iawn a bod angen clinigol amdanyn nhw. Felly, dyna'r ateb i Buffy o ran defnyddio hwn fel esgus i siarad am bethau eraill. Mae'n rhaid i chi fod yn ofalus iawn ynglŷn â sut rŷch chi'n defnyddio ymyrraeth glinigol. Rhaid inni hefyd leihau niwed posibl drwy beidio â darparu ymyriadau diangen. Rhaid i raglenni sgrinio esblygu o hyd, wrth gwrs, mewn ymateb i faich canser a datblygiadau gwyddonol. Jest i ymateb i Jenny Rathbone - .