English: Thank you for those questions and comments. I make no apology for saying that the hernia issues are separate matters, with a different group of surgeons and a different process in place to understand the level of complications that exists. This has been unashamedly focused on women's health issues, and, bluntly, if the same level of complications had affected men's health issues, I suspect we would have heard about them much sooner. I'll deal with your final point first about the multidisciplinary teams. Of course, recommendation 5 deals with multidisciplinary teams for pelvic pain clinics, as opposed to broader multidisciplinary teams that are in place around surgery. There's a challenge here about making sure that we have the right number of multidisciplinary teams in place, including, of course, for a specialist centre for mesh removal, and to look at one or more of those, and in particular about what happens currently in south Wales and having an accredited multidisciplinary surgical removal centre, but also about the continued use of Manchester for patients in north Wales. On your points around the banning of - . No, I'll deal with your audit point first, before I come back to the point about banning mesh, which has featured very heavily in what we've been asked to do over a period of time. If we look at the auditing that's taken place in England, they're looking at it on an experimental basis in England to try and retrospectively audit what has happened. What's been helpful is that, between officials in the Welsh Government and the Department for Health for the UK Government, acting for England, there has been a really constructive transfer of information about the audit taking place, and there are similarities in the range of challenges that we expect the audit in England to reveal. Before I look to undertake retrospective action, where we can't be sure of the exact value of that, I am interested, though, in understanding what happens in England and what lessons we can learn from that, as well as looking more proactively at the issues for new implants of medical devices. There is a European Union directive, due to be implemented in 2020 or 2021. Of course, that will still be an issue for us, regardless of what the transitional deal is or isn't agreed by the United Kingdom Government and our relationship with the European Union. But that is looking at being able to understand and have a proper register what devices have been implanted into people more generally. Now, there is a challenge there about understanding whether they're able to scan that and understand how that's done, and that is covered in the recommendations in the report. In taking forward these recommendations, we'll need to determine what our approach to that will be. That is not something that is simply covered over or about to be forgotten. And that will help us to deal with some of the requests from the women involved. In the requests they gave us, I think on pretty much every area we're going to be able to show progress, apart from the issue of a ban. You mentioned Scotland, and the request for a suspension made by the Scottish health Secretary. Well, it's a matter for the Scottish health Secretary to answer for themselves about their approach, but, as you say, a range of people have still undergone mesh implants since that time. That's because the Scottish health Secretary, just like me, doesn't have the power to ban mesh implants. The challenge is that whilst these are regulated devices that are available, and are available for use, it is an issue of consent between the health provider and the individual citizen about whether they wish to have the surgery provided. Now, as I say, there are a number of women who have had the surgery without complication. Part of what the women asked us to look at, and part of the terms of reference for the task and finish group, was about properly informed consent to make sure that people really did have the challenges and the risks explained to them, to make sure it really is a very last resort. And even then, some women will choose not to have the surgery, and that should be an informed choice to make, just as women who do choose to have surgery, if that is their choice - it must be their choice on a properly informed basis. I have, though, written to the MHRA asking them to reflect on the regulated decisions in Australia and New Zealand in particular to ban mesh. The MHRA have responded and said that they do not intend to do so. However, since then, the Cumberlege review is in place to look again at a number of these issues, and there will be engagement both from the NHS and the Government in that review, and I expect women from across Wales will engage in that review too. So, this is not an issue that's about to go away. Whilst I don't have the power - and you'll understand why politicians don't have the power to ban in particular surgical devices or equipment available for the health service - we are fixed with a proper division between a regulator's power and the power that a politician has. But as I say, I have provided them with a copy of this review, and I look forward to the Cumberlege review and what that will tell us and about this decision being kept properly under review in light of the evidence available.
Welsh: Diolch ichi am y sylwadau a'r cwestiynau hynny. Dydw i ddim yn mynd i ymddiheuro am ddweud bod y materion torgest yn faterion ar wahân, gyda grŵp gwahanol o lawfeddygon a phroses wahanol ar waith i ddeall lefel y cymhlethdodau sy'n bodoli. Mae hwn wedi canolbwyntio yn ddiedifar ar faterion iechyd menywod, ac, yn blwmp ac yn blaen, pe byddai'r lefel hon o gymhlethdodau wedi effeithio ar faterion iechyd dynion, rwy'n tybio y byddem wedi clywed amdanyn nhw'n gynt o lawer. Fe wnaf i ymdrin â'ch pwynt olaf yn gyntaf am y timau amlddisgyblaethol. Wrth gwrs, mae argymhelliad 5 yn ymdrin â thimau amlddisgyblaethol ar gyfer clinigau poen y pelfis, yn hytrach na thimau amlddisgyblaethol ehangach sydd ar waith mewn llawdriniaeth. Mae her yma i wneud yn siŵr fod gennym y nifer gywir o dimau amlddisgyblaethol ar waith, gan gynnwys, wrth gwrs, ganolfan arbenigol ar gyfer tynnu rhwyllau, ac i ystyried un neu fwy o'r rheini, ac yn benodol yr hyn sy'n digwydd ar hyn o bryd yn y de a chael canolfan lawfeddygol amlddisgyblaethol achrededig, ond hefyd am barhau i ddefnyddio Manceinion ar gyfer cleifion yn y gogledd. O ran eich pwyntiau ynghylch gwahardd - . Na, fe wnaf ymdrin â'ch pwynt am archwilio yn gyntaf, cyn imi ddod yn ôl at y pwynt am wahardd rhwyll, sydd wedi ymddangos yn amlwg iawn yn yr hyn y gofynnwyd i ni ei wneud dros gyfnod o amser. Os edrychwn ni ar yr archwilio hynny sydd wedi digwydd yn Lloegr, maen nhw'n ei ystyried ar sail arbrofol yn Lloegr i geisio archwilio'n ôl-weithredol yr hyn sydd wedi digwydd. Yr hyn sydd wedi bod yn ddefnyddiol yw, rhwng swyddogion yn Llywodraeth Cymru ac Adran Iechyd Llywodraeth y DU, sy'n gweithredu ar ran Lloegr, y cafwyd trosglwyddiad adeiladol iawn o wybodaeth am yr archwiliad sy'n digwydd, ac mae tebygrwydd yn yr ystod o heriau yr ydym yn disgwyl i'r archwiliad yn Lloegr eu datgelu. Cyn i mi ystyried cymryd camau ôl-weithredol, lle na allwn ni fod yn siŵr o union werth hynny, mae gennyf ddiddordeb, er hynny, mewn deall beth sy'n digwydd yn Lloegr a pha wersi y gallwn ni eu dysgu o hynny, yn ogystal ag edrych yn fwy rhagweithiol ar y materion ar gyfer mewnblaniadau newydd o ddyfeisiau meddygol. Mae yna gyfarwyddeb yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, a fydd yn cael ei rhoi ar waith yn 2020 neu 2021. Wrth gwrs, bydd hwnnw'n dal i fod yn fater i ni, ni waeth pa fargen drosiannol y mae Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig yn cytuno arni neu ddim yn cytuno arni a'n perthynas ni gyda'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Ond mae hynny'n ystyried gallu deall a bod â chofrestr briodol o ba ddyfeisiau sydd wedi'u mewnblannu mewn pobl yn fwy cyffredinol. Nawr, mae yna her yn y fan honno ynghylch deall a ydyn nhw'n gallu sganio hynny a deall sut y gwneir hynny, a chaiff hynny ei gynnwys yn yr argymhellion yn yr adroddiad. Wrth ddatblygu'r argymhellion hyn, bydd angen inni benderfynu beth fydd ein dull o wneud hynny. Nid yw hynny'n rhywbeth a gaiff ei guddio neu sydd ar fin cael ei anghofio. A bydd hynny'n ein helpu ni i ymdrin â rhai o'r ceisiadau gan y menywod dan sylw. Yn y ceisiadau a roddwyd i ni, rwy'n credu y byddwn yn gallu dangos cynnydd ym mhob maes fwy neu lai, ar wahân i fater y gwaharddiad. Soniasoch am yr Alban, a'r cais i atal dros dro a wnaed gan Ysgrifennydd Iechyd yr Alban. Wel, mater i Ysgrifennydd Iechyd yr Alban yw ateb drosto ei hun am ei ddull gweithredu, ond, fel y dywedwch chi, mae amrywiaeth o bobl yn dal wedi cael mewnblaniadau rhwyll ers yr amser hwnnw. Mae hynny oherwydd nad oes gan Ysgrifennydd Iechyd yr Alban, fel fi, y grym i wahardd mewnblaniadau rhwyll. Yr her yw, er bod y rhain yn ddyfeisiau a reoleiddir sydd ar gael, ac maen nhw ar gael i'w defnyddio, ei bod yn fater o ganiatâd rhwng y darparwr iechyd a'r dinesydd unigol ynghylch a yw'n dymuno cael y llawdriniaeth. Nawr, fel y dywedaf, mae yna nifer o fenywod sydd wedi cael y llawdriniaeth heb gymhlethdod. Rhan o'r hyn y gofynnodd y menywod inni ei ystyried, a rhan o gylch gorchwyl y grŵp gorchwyl a gorffen, oedd cael cydsyniad gwybodus priodol i wneud yn siŵr bod pobl mewn gwirionedd yn cael eglurhad o'r heriau a'r risgiau, i wneud yn siŵr mai hwn yw'r dewis olaf un. A hyd yn oed wedyn, bydd rhai menywod yn dewis peidio â chael y llawdriniaeth, a dylai hwnnw fod yn ddewis gwybodus i'w wneud, yn yr un modd ag y mae menywod sy'n dewis cael llawdriniaeth, os dyna yw eu dewis - mae'n rhaid iddyn nhw ddewis hynny ar sail gwybodaeth briodol. Er hynny, rwyf wedi ysgrifennu at yr Asiantaeth Rheoleiddio Meddyginiaethau a Chynhyrchion Gofal Iechyd yn gofyn iddyn nhw ystyried y penderfyniadau a reoleiddiwyd yn Awstralia a Seland Newydd yn benodol i wahardd rhwyll. Mae'r Asiantaeth Rheoleiddio Meddyginiaethau a Chynhyrchion Gofal Iechyd wedi ymateb ac wedi dweud nad ydyn nhw'n bwriadu gwneud hynny. Fodd bynnag, ers hynny, mae arolwg Cumberlege yn mynd i edrych eto ar nifer o'r materion hyn, a bydd ymgysylltiad gan y GIG a'r Llywodraeth yn yr adolygiad hwnnw, ac rwy'n disgwyl y bydd menywod ledled Cymru yn cymryd rhan yn yr adolygiad hwnnw hefyd. Felly, nid yw hwn yn fater sy'n mynd i ddiflannu. Er nad oes gennyf i'r grym - a byddwch chi'n deall pam nad oes gan wleidyddion y grym i wahardd yn benodol ddyfeisiau neu gyfarpar llawfeddygol sydd ar gael ar gyfer y gwasanaeth iechyd - mae gennym ni sefyllfa sydd â rhaniad priodol rhwng grym y rheoleiddiwr a grym y gwleidydd. Ond fel rwy'n dweud, rwyf wedi rhoi copi o'r adolygiad hwn iddyn nhw, ac edrychaf ymlaen at adolygiad Cumberlege a'r hyn y bydd ganddo i'w ddweud, ac am barhau i adolygu'r penderfyniad hwn yn briodol ar sail y dystiolaeth sydd ar gael.