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.