English: Basically, the case of Dylan Seabridge is absolutely heartbreaking. Those of us who have children feel that way about this, especially the fact that the people who were charged with protecting him are the ones who failed him. I know many live-in families who have home schooled their children with great success and those children have turned out well and well-rounded and have actually gone on to have good careers and gone to university. In contrast, we can look at the case of little Daniel Pelka, who died at the hands of his parents in 2012, who was going through the traditional system and was found rummaging in bins for food at school because he was being horribly mistreated at home. Now, despite this, and the fact that he'd missed 28 days of school, the abuse was not picked up by the teachers or by any of the people who were charged with looking after him. My plea is that, as you have said, you do not have a knee-jerk reaction to Dylan's case and that home-schooling is not made more difficult or challenging for those who choose this path. How is it that you can ensure that vulnerable children are seen regularly by those charged with their protection and that no more children slip through the safety net, and that parents who home-school are not going to be vilified? And also, will you ensure that there is a balance between the right of parents to raise their children in the way that they see fit and the right of the child to education and health? Just one last point: you've raised many times, now, vaccination; are you saying that people who don't vaccinate their children - ? Is it that this is a trigger by which you think that there may be abuse going on at home? What was the relationship to which you were raising vaccination? Could you just make that clear?
Welsh: Yn y bôn, mae achos Dylan Seabridge yn gwbl dorcalonnus. Mae'r rheini ohonom sydd â phlant yn teimlo felly am hyn, yn enwedig y ffaith ei fod wedi cael ei adael i lawr gan y bobl a oedd yn gyfrifol am ofalu amdano. Rwy'n adnabod llawer o deuluoedd sy'n byw i mewn sydd wedi addysgu eu plant gartref gyda llwyddiant mawr ac mae'r plant hynny wedi tyfu'n bobl dda a chyflawn ac wedi mynd yn eu blaenau i gael gyrfaoedd da ac wedi mynd i'r brifysgol. Ar y llaw arall, gallwn edrych ar achos Daniel Pelka, a fu farw wrth law ei rieni yn 2012, a oedd yn mynd drwy'r system draddodiadol ac a gafodd ei ganfod yn chwilota mewn biniau am fwyd yn yr ysgol gan ei fod yn cael ei gam-drin yn ofnadwy gartref. Nawr, er gwaethaf hyn, a'r ffaith ei fod wedi colli 28 diwrnod o ysgol, ni chanfuwyd y cam-drin gan yr athrawon na chan unrhyw un o'r bobl a oedd yn gyfrifol am ofalu amdano. Fy mhle i, fel yr ydych chi wedi ei ddweud, yw nad ydych chi'n ymateb yn ddifeddwl i achos Dylan ac nad yw addysgu gartref yn anoddach neu'n fwy heriol i'r bobl hynny sy'n dewis y llwybr hwn. Sut y gallwch sicrhau bod plant agored i niwed yn cael eu gweld yn rheolaidd gan y rhai sy'n gyfrifol am eu diogelwch ac nad oes mwy o blant yn llithro drwy'r rhwyd ddiogelwch, ac nad yw rhieni sy'n addysgu gartref yn mynd i gael eu difrïo? A hefyd, a wnewch chi sicrhau bod yna gydbwysedd rhwng hawl rhieni i fagu eu plant yn y ffordd y maent yn ei gweld orau a hawl y plentyn i gael addysg ac iechyd? Dim ond un pwynt olaf: rydych wedi sôn sawl gwaith, nawr, am frechu; a ydych yn dweud bod pobl nad ydynt yn brechu eu plant-? A yw hyn yn sbardun sy'n gwneud i chi feddwl y gallai fod cam-drin yn digwydd yn y cartref? Beth oedd y berthynas yr oeddech yn sôn amdani â brechu? A allech wneud hynny'n glir?