English: Well, Llywydd, it's right that we should have had this debate this afternoon, so that Members could put their views. Can I say, before I deal with the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, that the speeches given by David Melding and by Angela Burns were far closer to the kind of leader's speech I would have expected from somebody who is leading one of Wales's biggest political parties? What a contrast there was between their thoughtful contributions and the shouting that we saw from the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. Let's not pretend that this is anything other than what it is. It is a bung; it is a bribe; it is cash for votes. This is an example of the UK Government saying that Barnett must stay, but saying that it is expedient that Barnett should be ignored when the UK Government deems it fit - in other words, to help themselves. They have begun the unravelling of one of the binds that holds the four nations of the UK together, and that is the very question of fair funding. If the UK is not for fair funding of its constituent nations and regions, then what is left for it? Surely, that solidarity is something that we should prize and something that should not be given away - frittered away, indeed - needlessly. I suppose, for Theresa May, it's a question of not so much principle, but if the bowler hat fits, wear it - considering the people that she's been dealing with. I expected more from the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. He is somebody who has a thick skin. I mean, he was kicked off debates in the middle of the election campaign, and kicked out of his own manifesto launch, which we're eternally grateful for, because that changed the election, as far as we were concerned. The speech that Theresa May made at Wrexham turned the tide of the election. He is not allowed to attend the UK Cabinet. Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives is. I almost feel sorry for him at this stage, and yet he tells us, 'I have been talking to the people that count.' Well, there have never been any results in the past; there will be no results in the future. How can he defend a situation where more money is made available for mental health in Northern Ireland, not in Wales; more money is made available for education in Northern Ireland, not in Wales; more money is made available for health pressures in Northern Ireland, not in Wales? His colleagues, and I give them credit for this - identified that as a problem and an issue, and they said that they would fight to change things. He failed to do that. He said that he would stand up for Wales. He has failed to do that on this occasion. Could I urge him as well to take this matter up with his parliamentary colleagues? There are eight of them. They have a powerful voice. They actually have a powerful voice, the eight of them. They could make the point to Theresa May that this is not acceptable, as far as Wales is concerned, and that Barnett should continue to apply. Let them now start to speak for Wales and not be the sedate eight that they've been over the past few weeks. Could I say that in terms of the - ? If I could turn to David Melding as well, David is always worth listening to, and he made some very pertinent points. He made the point that at least some of this money should be Barnettised. Now, from my perspective, I don't begrudge Northern Ireland the money, but I say if Northern Ireland should have extra money then so should Wales, Scotland, and the English regions. The reality is, as the leader of Plaid Cymru has put it, austerity has been ended in Northern Ireland but not in England, Wales, and Scotland, even though the taxpayers of the nations of Great Britain are paying for the ending of that austerity. Why should they pay for something they do not benefit from? That is something that they will ask. Because we should not underestimate the anger that has been felt in the three nations of Great Britain over this deal. If there needed to be a deal done, then that deal should not have been done at the expense of selling down the river England, Scotland, and Wales. That is something that divides the UK rather than unites it. Now, as Simon Thomas said - and I welcome his forensic dissection of the agreement itself - there is money here for projects that normally we would have to pay for ourselves. I know the York Street interchange, as it happens. It's a terrible traffic problem in the middle of Belfast. It's our equivalent of the Brynglas tunnel or some of the problems on the A55, yet those projects we have to pay for. There's no extra money for Wales to pay for those infrastructure projects, important though they are. There's no extra money to pay for broadband, important though that is, but, apparently, in Northern Ireland it's different. We have to borrow money to pay for these schemes. Northern Ireland has the money given to it. [Interruption.] The Conservatives think it's funny. Look at them. They think it's funny that Wales is being done down in this way. Well, let the people of Wales judge them. And, yes, bring on the next general election, frankly, if you're that afraid of it. We are more than happy to say to the people of Wales that you have not - with the exception, in fairness, of some of your speakers - stood up for Wales on this occasion. Angela Burns made the points that she did. I recognise the fact that she said that Barnett should apply with regard to health and education. I do remind her that she said that the Conservatives, as the largest party, had the legitimacy to govern. That's not the way she saw it last year when the vote took place in this Chamber when we came back as the largest party. It was different then to what it is now, but a different party was involved at that time. So, there is an inconsistency there, shall we say, in the points that she has made. What troubles me more than anything is that this Conservative Government has been tasked with getting the best deal for the UK as it leaves the EU, and it's been shaken down by 10 DUP MPs. What hope is there then for the future if that is their strength? I listened carefully to Neil Hamilton: 'bilious waffle' is what I've got written down here, masquerading as an attempt at debate, somebody who took the viewpoint of the UK Government - perhaps he wants to go back into the Conservative party - and the DUP rather than, again, speaking up for the people he actually represents. Could I remind him? It's all very well for him to blame other parties for this scenario, but his party failed to get a single MP at all. So, if any party is going to take the blame for this, it's his own for their abject failure in actually getting anybody elected to Westminster. The reality is that this is a deal that has been done to save the skin of the Prime Minister, and not a deal that has been done in the interests of all four nations of the UK. Where does this leave Brexit? Where does it leave the Brexit negotiations? All we know is this, Llywydd: the DUP are fond of the phrase 'no surrender'. Today, the Conservatives are fond of the phrase 'abject surrender'.
Welsh: Wel, Llywydd, mae'n iawn ein bod wedi cael y ddadl hon y prynhawn yma, er mwyn i Aelodau roi eu barn. A gaf ddweud, cyn imi ymdrin ag arweinydd y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig, bod yr areithiau a roddwyd gan David Melding a gan Angela Burns yn llawer agosach at y math o araith arweinydd y byddwn wedi ei disgwyl gan rywun sy'n arwain un o bleidiau gwleidyddol mwyaf Cymru? Dyna gyferbyniad rhwng eu cyfraniadau meddylgar a'r gweiddi a welsom gan arweinydd y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig. Dewch inni beidio ag esgus bod hyn yn ddim byd ond yr hyn ydyw. Bwng ydyw; llwgrwobr; arian am bleidleisiau. Mae hyn yn enghraifft o Lywodraeth y DU yn dweud bod yn rhaid i Barnett aros, ond yn dweud ei bod yn hwylus anwybyddu Barnett pan fydd Llywodraeth y DU yn barnu bod hynny'n addas - mewn geiriau eraill, i'w helpu eu hunain. Maent wedi dechrau datod un o'r rhwymau sy'n dal pedair gwlad y DU at ei gilydd, sef cyllid teg. Os nad yw'r DU o blaid cyllid teg i'w gwledydd a'i rhanbarthau cyfansoddol, beth sydd ar ôl iddi? Does bosib nad yw'r undod hwnnw'n rhywbeth y dylem ei werthfawrogi ac yn rhywbeth na ddylid ei roi i ffwrdd - ei wastraffu, yn wir - yn ddiangen. Mae'n siŵr gen i, i Theresa May, nad yw'n gymaint o fater o egwyddor, ond os yw'r het bowler yn ffitio, ei gwisgo - o ystyried y bobl y mae hi wedi bod yn ymdrin â nhw. Roeddwn yn disgwyl mwy gan arweinydd y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig. Mae ef yn rhywun sydd â chroen trwchus. Hynny yw, cafodd ei gicio oddi ar ddadleuon yng nghanol yr ymgyrch etholiadol, a chafodd ei gicio allan o'i lansiad maniffesto ei hun, rhywbeth yr ydym yn dragwyddol ddiolchgar amdano, oherwydd newidiodd hynny'r etholiad, yn ein barn ni. Yr araith a wnaeth Theresa May yn Wrecsam a drodd lanw'r etholiad. Nid yw'n cael mynychu Cabinet y DU. Mae Ruth Davidson, arweinydd Ceidwadwyr yr Alban, yn cael gwneud hynny. Rwyf bron yn teimlo trueni drosto erbyn hyn, ac eto mae'n dweud wrthym ei fod wedi bod yn siarad â'r bobl sy'n cyfrif. Wel, nid oes unrhyw ganlyniadau erioed wedi bod yn y gorffennol; ni fydd dim canlyniadau yn y dyfodol. Sut y gall ef amddiffyn sefyllfa lle mae mwy o arian yn cael ei ddarparu ar gyfer iechyd meddwl yng Ngogledd Iwerddon, nid yng Nghymru; mwy o arian yn cael ei ddarparu ar gyfer addysg yng Ngogledd Iwerddon, nid yng Nghymru; mwy o arian yn cael ei ddarparu ar gyfer pwysau iechyd yng Ngogledd Iwerddon, nid yng Nghymru? Mae ei gydweithwyr, ac rwy'n rhoi clod iddynt am hyn - wedi nodi bod hynny'n broblem ac yn fater, ac maent wedi dweud y byddent yn ymladd i newid pethau. Ni allodd ef wneud hynny. Dywedodd y byddai'n sefyll dros Gymru. Mae wedi methu â gwneud hynny y tro hwn. A allwn ei annog hefyd i sôn am y mater hwn gyda'i gydweithwyr seneddol? Mae wyth ohonynt. Mae ganddynt lais pwerus. Mae ganddynt lais gwirioneddol rymus, yr wyth ohonynt. Gallent ddweud wrth Theresa May nad yw hyn yn dderbyniol, o ran Cymru, ac y dylai Barnett ddal i fod yn berthnasol. Gadewch iddynt nawr ddechrau siarad dros Gymru yn hytrach na bod yn wyth didaro fel y maent wedi bod yn ystod y rhai wythnosau diwethaf. A gaf i ddweud, o ran y - ? Os caf i droi at David Melding hefyd, mae bob amser werth gwrando ar David, a gwnaeth rai pwyntiau perthnasol iawn. Gwnaeth y pwynt y dylid defnyddio fformiwla Barnett ag o leiaf rhywfaint o'r arian hwn. Nawr, o fy safbwynt i, nid wyf yn gwarafun yr arian i Ogledd Iwerddon, ond rwy'n dweud os dylai Gogledd Iwerddon gael arian ychwanegol, dylai Cymru, yr Alban, a rhanbarthau Lloegr gael rhagor hefyd. Y gwirionedd yw, fel y dywedodd arweinydd Plaid Cymru, bod cyni wedi dod i ben yng Ngogledd Iwerddon, ond nid yng Nghymru, Lloegr, a'r Alban, er mai trethdalwyr cenhedloedd Prydain Fawr sy'n talu am ddod â chyni i ben. Pam y dylent dalu am rywbeth nad ydynt yn cael budd ohono? Mae hynny'n rhywbeth y byddant yn ei ofyn. Oherwydd ni ddylem danbrisio'r dicter y mae tair gwlad Prydain Fawr wedi ei deimlo am y cytundeb hwn. Os oedd angen taro bargen, ni ddylid bod wedi taro'r fargen honno ar draul gwerthu Lloegr, yr Alban, a Chymru i lawr yr afon. Mae hynny'n rhywbeth sy'n rhannu'r DU yn hytrach na'i huno. Nawr, fel y dywedodd Simon Thomas - ac rwy'n croesawu'r ffordd y mae wedi dyrannu'r cytundeb ei hun yn fforensig - mae arian yma ar gyfer prosiectau y byddai'n rhaid inni dalu amdanynt ein hunain fel arfer. Rwy'n gwybod am gyfnewidfa York Street, fel y mae'n digwydd. Mae'n broblem draffig ofnadwy yng nghanol Belfast. Mae'n cyfateb i dwnnel Brynglas neu rai o'r problemau ar yr A55 yma, ac eto ni sy'n gorfod talu am y prosiectau hynny. Does dim arian ychwanegol i Gymru i dalu am y prosiectau seilwaith hynny, er mor bwysig ydynt. Does dim arian ychwanegol i dalu am fand eang, er mor bwysig yw hynny, ond, mae'n debyg bod pethau'n wahanol yng Ngogledd Iwerddon. Mae'n rhaid i ni fenthyg arian i dalu am y cynlluniau hyn. Mae'r arian yn cael ei roi i Ogledd Iwerddon. [Torri ar draws.] Mae'r Ceidwadwyr yn meddwl bod hyn yn ddoniol. Edrychwch arnynt. Maent yn meddwl ei bod yn ddoniol bod Cymru yn cael ei gadael i lawr yn y modd hwn. Wel, gadewch i bobl Cymru eu barnu. Ac, ie, dewch inni gael yr etholiad cyffredinol nesaf, a dweud y gwir, os ydych chi'n ei ofni gymaint. Rydym yn fwy na pharod i ddweud wrth bobl Cymru nad ydych - ac eithrio, a bod yn deg, rhai o'ch siaradwyr - wedi sefyll dros Gymru ar yr achlysur hwn. Gwnaeth Angela Burns y pwyntiau a wnaeth. Rwy'n cydnabod y ffaith ei bod wedi dweud y dylai Barnett fod yn berthnasol i iechyd ac addysg. Rwy'n ei hatgoffa ei bod wedi dweud bod gan y Ceidwadwyr, fel y blaid fwyaf, y dilysrwydd i lywodraethu. Nid dyna'r ffordd y gwelodd hi bethau y llynedd pan fu pleidlais yn y Siambr hon pan ddaethom ni'n ôl fel y blaid fwyaf. Roedd yn wahanol bryd hynny i'r hyn sydd yn awr, ond roedd honno'n blaid wahanol. Felly, mae anghysondeb yno, a gawn ddweud, yn y pwyntiau y mae hi wedi'u gwneud. Yr hyn sy'n fy mhoeni'n fwy na dim yw bod y Llywodraeth Geidwadol wedi cael y dasg o gael y fargen orau ar gyfer y DU wrth iddi adael yr UE, a bod 10 o ASau y DUP wedi eu blingo nhw. Pa obaith sydd felly ar gyfer y dyfodol os mai dyna yw eu cryfder? Gwrandewais yn ofalus ar Neil Hamilton: 'malu awyr cwerylgar' yw'r hyn yr wyf wedi'i ysgrifennu yma, yn ffugio bod yn ymgais i drafod, rhywun a gymerodd safbwynt Llywodraeth y DU - efallai yr hoffai fynd yn ôl i'r blaid Geidwadol - a'r DUP yn hytrach nag, unwaith eto, siarad dros y bobl y mae mewn gwirionedd yn eu cynrychioli. A gaf i ei atgoffa? Mae'n ddigon hawdd iddo ef feio pleidiau eraill am y sefyllfa hon, ond methodd ei blaid gael un AS o gwbl. Felly, os yw unrhyw blaid yn mynd i gymryd y bai am hyn, ei blaid ef fydd honno am eu methiant llwyr i gael unrhyw un wedi'i ethol i San Steffan. Y gwir amdani yw bod y fargen hon wedi'i tharo i achub croen y Prif Weinidog, ac nid er budd pedair gwlad y DU. Ble mae hyn yn gadael Brexit? Ble mae'n gadael trafodaethau Brexit? Yr unig beth yr ydym yn ei wybod yw hyn, Llywydd: mae'r DUP yn hoff o'r ymadrodd 'dim ildio'. Heddiw, mae'r Ceidwadwyr yn hoff o'r ymadrodd 'ildio truenus'.