English: Yes, of course I do. Of course I do. What you do with your own money is at the heart of the issue. And what I'm saying is that when the Government gives away taxpayers' money no question of morality can arise, because it is somebody giving away other people's money. There is no element of morality involved in that. So, the point of this debate is - [Interruption.] The point of this debate - [Interruption.] The point, if I may finish my remarks - . The point of this debate is simply to advertise the fact that a great deal of the money that is spent on overseas aid is spent on questionable projects, debateable projects, which don't necessarily lead to the relief of poverty, the eradication of disease, the improvement of water facilities, et cetera, et cetera - all those things we can universally approve. Sending dance troupes to Ethiopia perhaps is not something of which we can approve - £5 million or whatever the figure was that was spent on that from the budget in 2013. I deliberately didn't give colourful examples of that kind from the archives of the 'The Daily Mail' - something to which I referred as an ironical remark in my speech earlier on - because I didn't want to trivialise the debate or allow it to be trivialised. But there is a serious point at issue here. We can choose to spend the money that we take from taxpayers in any number of different ways. We know that the health service is underfunded everywhere. It's bound to be, given the nature of its construction and infinite demands that are placed upon it. We can choose to increase the aid budget by another £10 billion and take it away from some other budget. Well, if so, what is that other budget? Is that an example of moral superiority on the part of those who've taken the opposite side of the argument to us today? You know, there are plenty of things: what about the arts council and things like that? They are all virtuous things in themselves, but is it better to fund a theatre or a symphony orchestra than to relieve real poverty and eradicate disease? These are difficult questions and difficult choices that we all have to make. But to take the view of the smug, superior, condescending approach that we've heard this afternoon I think demeans the debate. To think that out in the country, at large, a very small proportion of people would support the UKIP motion today I think is to fool yourselves. If you had some kind of a referendum on overseas aid then that would produce a very different result indeed - [Interruption.] And I see now that Members are not quite so keen on asking the people what they think about what we do with our money in that way. So -
Welsh: Gwnaf, wrth gwrs y gwnaf. Wrth gwrs y gwnaf. Yr hyn a wnewch gyda'ch arian eich hun yw craidd y mater. A'r hyn rwy'n ei ddweud yw na all unrhyw gwestiwn o foesoldeb godi pan fydd y Llywodraeth yn cyfrannu arian trethdalwyr, oherwydd mae'n ymwneud â rhywun yn cyfrannu arian pobl eraill. Nid oes unrhyw elfen o foesoldeb yn rhan o hynny. Felly, pwynt y ddadl hon yw - [Torri ar draws.] Pwynt y ddadl hon - [Torri ar draws.] Y pwynt, os caf orffen fy sylwadau - . Pwynt y ddadl hon, yn syml, yw hysbysebu'r ffaith fod llawer iawn o'r arian sy'n cael ei wario ar gymorth tramor yn cael ei wario ar brosiectau amheus, prosiectau dadleuol, nad ydynt o reidrwydd yn arwain at leddfu tlodi, dileu clefydau, gwella cyfleusterau dŵr, ac yn y blaen - yr holl bethau y gall pawb ohonom eu cymeradwyo. Efallai nad yw anfon grwpiau dawns i Ethiopia yn rhywbeth y gallwn ei gymeradwyo - £5 miliwn neu beth bynnag oedd y ffigur a wariwyd ar hynny o'r gyllideb yn 2013. Yn fwriadol ni roddais enghreifftiau lliwgar o'r math hwnnw o archifau 'The Daily Mail' - rhywbeth y cyfeiriais ato fel sylw eironig yn fy araith yn gynharach - oherwydd nad oeddwn am fychanu'r drafodaeth neu ganiatáu iddi gael ei bychanu. Ond mae yna bwynt difrifol yn y fan hon. Gallwn ddewis gwario'r arian a gymerwn gan drethdalwyr mewn pob math o wahanol ffyrdd. Rydym yn gwybod bod y gwasanaeth iechyd yn cael ei danariannu ym mhob man. Mae'n sicr o fod, o ystyried natur ei adeiladwaith a'r gofynion diddiwedd a osodir arno. Gallwn ddewis rhoi £10 biliwn arall i'r gyllideb cymorth a'i dynnu o gyllideb arall. Wel, os felly, beth yw'r gyllideb arall honno? A yw honno'n enghraifft o ragoriaeth foesol ar ran y rhai sydd ar yr ochr arall i'r ddadl heddiw? Wyddoch chi, mae yna ddigon o bethau: beth am gyngor y celfyddydau a phethau felly? Maent i gyd yn bethau rhinweddol ynddynt eu hunain, ond a yw'n well ariannu theatr neu gerddorfa symffoni na lleddfu tlodi go iawn a dileu clefydau? Mae'r rhain yn gwestiynau anodd ac yn ddewisiadau anodd sy'n rhaid i bawb ohonom eu gwneud. Ond rwy'n credu bod arddel y safbwynt hunanfodlon, uwchraddol, nawddoglyd a glywsom y prynhawn yma yn diraddio'r ddadl. Yn fy marn i, rydych yn twyllo eich hunain yn meddwl mai cyfran fach iawn o bobl yn y wlad yn gyffredinol a fyddai'n cefnogi cynnig UKIP heddiw. Pe baech yn cynnal rhyw fath o refferendwm ar gymorth tramor byddai'n cynhyrchu canlyniad gwahanol iawn yn wir - [Torri ar draws.] Ac rwy'n gweld yn awr nad yw'r Aelodau lawn mor awyddus i ofyn i'r bobl beth yw eu barn am yr hyn a wnawn gyda'n harian yn y ffordd honno. Felly -