We now move to the urgent debate on the UK Government and the DUP’s confidence and supply agreement, and I call on the First Minister to open this urgent debate. First Minister.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I’m grateful for the time allowed for this urgent debate today in response to the wholly exceptional circumstances created by the UK Government’s agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party. The terms of a deal to prop up the minority Government in London emerged yesterday and Members will be familiar with the details, but, essentially, the UK Government has earmarked almost £1 billion over the next two years for Northern Ireland, and much more in later years, and more beyond that, I suspect, will be extracted as the price of support from the DUP in order to keep the Conservative Government in office. In return, the DUP will support the Queen’s Speech, financial Bills, and EU exit legislation. We hear that the deal will be supervised by a co-ordination committee chaired by the UK Government.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this is the most destructive political agreement in living memory. It is unfair, wrong and corrosive. Only last week, we were told that the Prime Minister’s priority was to build a more united country, strengthening the social, economic and cultural bonds between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Well, this agreement undermines the very principles of fairness and solidarity that are the foundations of the UK.

The distribution of revenue across the UK must be carried out transparently, in accordance with established and publicly available principles and rules, with any departure from those rules properly explained and justified. It should not proceed on the basis of short-term, party political advantage. For all its faults, we are supposed to have the vestiges of a rules-based system centred on the Barnett formula. Now, as Members will know very well, I am no advocate for Barnett. It is, at best, imperfect and should be replaced by a more objective system where resources are distributed on the basis of need. But, for now, it is all we have.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Llywydd, if the Barnett formula were to be applied to the DUP deal, Wales would receive £1.5 billion over the next two years and £1.67 billion in total over five years. However, what the UK Government is saying is that Wales will receive zero. Of course, it’s not just Wales losing out; England and Scotland will receive nothing either. And the question I ask is: how can this be a basis for stability? How can it be a basis for any kind of respect from the people of Wales and elsewhere towards the UK Government? At the very least, voters are entitled to expect that the Government of the day will do its utmost to advance the interests of all parts of the UK fairly and equitably. If the DUP has extracted additional spending on infrastructure, for schools, for the health service and for deprived communities from the UK Government in return for its support, then that should be extended across the UK, not just Northern Ireland. Immediate pressures on health and education services are not the exclusive experience of Northern Ireland. Additional provision for mental health services should not be allocated only to Belfast. Ignoring the needs of Wales, Scotland and England in this way can only sow the seeds of further anger and resentment. Sacrificing the integrity of the UK for the sake of a deal to cling on to power will live long in the memory.

Llywydd, I must also express concern about what the DUP has agreed to do in return for propping up this administration. They have, seemingly, offered the UK Government carte-blanche support for EU exit legislation without having had sight of any proposals in detailed form. This drives a coach and horses through established consultative arrangements for developing an approach to Brexit involving both the UK Government and devolved administrations through the JMC.

A series of questions now need answers. Firstly, what are the implications of this agreement for future funding arrangements for other nations in the UK and, indeed, the regions of England? Has the UK Government now, in fact, abandoned the current rules for short-term gain? The Chamber will be particularly interested to hear from the leader of the Welsh Conservative group. Was he consulted on the agreement? Does he share my annoyance and that of others in this Chamber about this flagrant abuse of fair funding arrangements? Does he agree with me that the benefits of additional spending should be enjoyed across the UK, not just in Northern Ireland? Silent so far, his opportunity lies this afternoon.

What are the implications of this agreement for the UK-wide consultative process on EU exit? Specifically, if the Northern Ireland Executive comes back into being, as I hope it will, how is the UK Government-DUP agreement compatible with arrangements for the Joint Ministerial Committee? We believe that this agreement contravenes established constitutional practice, and the Cabinet Secretary for finance, I can inform the Assembly, has taken the first steps to initiate a formal dispute under the terms of the JMC dispute resolution machinery.

I’ve already made my views known, in the clearest terms, to the Secretary of State for Wales, with whom I spoke yesterday. He could not answer the questions that I put at the time, but, Llywydd, I have no doubt that many Members will feel as strongly about these issues as I or anyone in the Welsh Government, and that’s why we were keen to provide time today for this urgent debate, so Members have an opportunity to set out their thoughts.

I do welcome the opportunity to stand here today and address the debate. Sometimes, when a batsman is sent out to bat, he looks around the pitch, just to make sure he’s got all the fielders in view, and then he makes sure that none of the googlies get him caught on the wrong side. Ultimately, I hope to be able to, obviously, make sense of the deal that was put forward yesterday in the context of Wales but, importantly, in the context of the First Minister. Because I do remember this time last year, when he was in a minority situation, and obviously he was carving up deals with the Lib Dems, and obviously Plaid Cymru, and there was that memorable photograph of him using his handkerchief to wipe his eyes, almost wiping the tears away when the Chamber did come together on the vote for putting him in as First Minister. And no doubt, the deal that Kirsty Williams extracted from the First Minister was far greater because of that vote. Yet, time and time again, we have tried to elicit what that deal has meant, what that deal means and exactly what arrangements govern that deal, and to date, we have nothing. Fourteen months on, we have absolutely nothing.

We witnessed, with the concordat that was launched with Plaid Cymru about the support around budgets, that, ultimately, they aren’t consulted on anything, because we saw it in FMQs last week when it came to the European and single market arrangements. There was no agreement between the two parties, and today in the legislative statement, the reaction from Plaid Cymru was that they still hadn’t been consulted. So, we’re in a situation where there is a minority Government in Westminster after the general election. We all understand that. We all understand that, but the hypocrisy that’s coming from the Labour First Minister in particular, instead of being a First Minister, is just making him a very expensive political pundit—most probably the most expensive political pundit in Wales, I would suggest—because instead of offering solutions for Wales’s issues, he seems to want to comment on everything that isn’t within his control. And the real issue here is what—[Interruption.] The real issue here is that the country—[Interruption.] The country—

I do want to hear the leader of the opposition. Andrew R.T. Davies.

The United Kingdom—[Interruption.] The United Kingdom needs a Government, and a majority Government, to get on and get on with its business. And so, to achieve that majority status, obviously a deal was concluded with the Democratic Unionist Party, along the same lines—[Interruption.] I can see the Member for Ogmore chuntering away there, but it is a fact that Shaun Woodward, when he was Secretary of State in 2010 after the 2010 general election, was trying to carve a deal up with the DUP then, which involved money over to Northern Ireland. And also Lord Adonis, in his memoirs, makes exactly the same point. Now, what we need to be doing here, from Wales’s point of view, as I have said time and time again, and as I said yesterday and I said last week, is that where money has gone over and benefited—

Huw Irranca-Davies rose—

I’ll take the intervention in a minute. Where benefit has gone over to Northern Ireland, we need to secure those benefits here for Wales. And yes, I was talking to Downing Street yesterday morning, First Minister. While you were on the balcony talking to the BBC, I was talking to the people that count. That’s the difference—[Interruption.] That’s the difference—[Interruption.] That’s the difference between me and you, and we know what we want to achieve for Wales. All you want to do is grandstand, First Minister, and you will. You will continue to be marginalised and put to one side instead of working for what is in the best interests of Wales. Now, it is a fact—. Sorry, I will take the intervention.

I thank Andrew for giving way on this point, because he raises the important issue that as part of the peace process, historically, successive Governments have indeed shown their beneficence to Northern Ireland in order to actually solidify the peace process—part of the so-called peace dividend. Absolutely right. This is a whole different kettle of fish. I would ask him to reflect very carefully on the difference between actually underpinning the Good Friday agreement and making sure that those institutions stand, and actually showing a deep unfairness to the different constituent parts of the UK, by doing a deal that does not show fairness to other parts. This is not the same thing. And I would simply ask, in sitting down, for the leader of the Welsh Conservatives to speak as the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, not the Secretary of State for Wales.

I would draw your attention to what Lord Adonis said when he was negotiating with the DUP in 2010, when he said ‘We have written the new numbers down’ when it talks about money—for what the DUP vote was at that time. So, we won’t take any lectures from the Welsh Labour Party or the Labour Party when it comes to doing deals around securing votes. What is transparent about this deal is the figures are there and the agreement is there. What we will do from the Welsh Conservatives’ side is work with colleagues to make sure that there are resources brought into—

Member of the Senedd:

Will you take an intervention?

I haven’t got the time. What we will make sure, from the Welsh Conservatives’ point of view, is that instead of being sidelined, like the First Minister will be, we will work to make sure that the resources are made available to bring forward projects for Wales’s benefit, that this country does get the stable Government it requires to take us through the Brexit process, and ultimately, we will be governed by transparency and fairness, which is not what this Government has done—[Interruption.]—which is not what this Government has done when it has tried to shore up its position here with the Liberals or with Plaid Cymru. That is the fact. That is the evidence. From the Welsh Conservatives, we will fight tooth and nail to make sure we unlock those resources to bring into Wales to seek the benefits. I know I’m looking at Huw Irranca when I’m saying this, but ultimately, Huw Irranca needs to look at what he was voting for in 2010 and ultimately ask himself: why the hypocrisy? What you can count on from the Welsh Conservatives is that we will bring the resources into Wales, unlike the Labour Party, which will just grandstand, as we’ve seen today with the Circuit for Wales. And what is important today is to reflect on how we can constructively take forward Wales’s position in the new Parliament at Westminster and influence to bring resource here and benefit to Wales, and on this side of the Chamber, we will be doing that. We will not be marginalised, and we will make sure that Wales’s voice is heard in this argument.

The DUP deal keeps Theresa May in power through a confidence and supply agreement, and the size and the scope of the deal is unprecedented—£1.5 billion, including £1 billion of new cash, and flexibility of £500 million of existing funding, with no indication as to where that money is coming from. Well, perhaps it’s magic. The Barnett formula has been bypassed completely, and we estimate the cost of this to Wales as being £1.7 billion, and that is after cuts to this Assembly’s block grant of—how much? You’ve guessed it: £1.7 billion, according to the Welsh Government, as a result of austerity. This is money that Wales needs. To add insult to injury, we are told by the Tories that our funding floor and city deals are somehow comparable to this vast sum, even though the city deals include Welsh public sector money, both from the Government here and local authorities, and even though the funding floor has happened more by accident than by design.

Aside from the specific effect on Wales, we have to consider where this leaves the UK as a state in the light of the Brexit negotiations. Are the negotiators in Brussels looking at the governance of the UK and seeing a situation that is strong and stable? I’d say probably not.

But let’s turn to the position of Wales in all of this. People in Wales shouldn’t just be frustrated at this deal; they should be angry. Wales has always been third in the queue, behind Northern Ireland and Scotland, for both powers and funding. It’s not as though this country doesn’t need additional funds. This is the country that has kicked up the least fuss. We’ve been the quietest and most well-behaved of all the UK countries. We have never rocked the boat, and that has led to us being left behind, ignored. We—and I mean the Assembly as a whole, rather than any individual political party—have only decided, quite late in the day, that we should run our own police force, that we should have our own legal jurisdiction, and we’ve only got to that consensus years after Northern Ireland and Scotland have established those aspects of their democracy. We look as though we haven’t been respecting ourselves or our own national institution, so it can be no wonder that we are not respected at Westminster.

The current situation and the way that we’ve been doing things haven’t created significant leverage. Westminster Governments don’t perceive any real hunger for constitutional change from Wales. The Wales Office, now rebranded as the UK Government Wales, is doing what it says on the tin: acting as a spokesperson for Westminster in Wales, not as a voice for Wales in Westminster. That has to change, and that’s why I call upon every single Tory MP to stand with Wales to vote against this Queen’s Speech unless and until they can get extra funds for our country, too. Failure to do so will be letting Wales down, and they deserve to pay a heavy price for that.

All of the political parties here need to consider how we can change this situation. It isn’t just about our constitution. The effects of this political weakness can be seen all around us, in our infrastructure and our economy. It is an outrage that we are one of only three countries in Europe without any electrified railway, alongside Moldova and Albania. And when electrification does eventually happen it’ll be years later than in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland—a stark symbol of where we are in that pecking order.

Now, I don’t say any of this to talk Wales down. I say this because my ambition for this country knows no bounds. Our potential is vast. It has not yet been unlocked or unleashed. But while condemning this deal we must also learn the lessons.

Leanne, thanks for giving way. You make some good points about the need for Wales to be a self-confident, forward-looking nation, and I don’t disagree with you there, but you do have to accept that there has been significant progress made on many of the areas you’ve mentioned. You mention electrification, but this afternoon we’ve been talking about tax devolution—that’s happening. The Welsh Government have worked very hard to deliver a fiscal framework. So, I appreciate you’re not happy with this deal in Westminster—you want more—but you must respect that, under the previous Government, there have been changes we should welcome.

There have been changes. My point is that we are always last. We are always at the back of the queue. We must be honest. We must be honest among all parties in this Chamber. I would say the United Kingdom is not working for us. Too often, as in this case, it is working against us. The first step for us here is to admit that the UK, the Westminster system, is not delivering for Wales. It is penalising Wales, and once we admit that, we should look seriously at the next steps for Wales to use all of the influence that we have as political parties to ensure that this country moves up that pecking order.

As I said, the £1.5 billion deal is just the beginning. The DUP will no doubt come back to the table for more. Beyond the headline cash figure there are commitments on air passenger duty, corporation tax and more city deals. At the same time as we’re being told that Wales can’t have control over air passenger duty and that we should be grateful for the city deals that we’ve already got, the DUP will be leveraging these extra concessions throughout this Parliament.

We cannot afford for Wales to be silent when that happens and I would urge all fellow party leaders here today to think about what we can all do to amplify our voices. We must consider what we can do collectively because we should all accept that what Wales is doing at the moment is not working.

To finish, this deal has made many people very angry. The cash to Northern Ireland has effectively ended austerity there while we still have to suffer from austerity in Wales. Wales should demand parity of treatment and everyone here has a duty to do that.

The First Minister’s opening speech was full of unconscious humour and he did at least have the good grace, I think, to chuckle whilst he was talking about it being unfair, wrong and corrosive, this deal, as though it would be any different if it was Labour that had the larger number of seats and was doing a similar kind of deal with the DUP. I’m old enough to remember, as I’m not sure whether it was Lynne Neagle or Ken Skates pointed out earlier in the day, what politics was like in the 1970s. I remember the negotiations between the Wilson Government and the Callaghan Governments with Northern Irish Members, and I remember the day when the Labour Government was brought down by Frank Maguire coming over and being plied with drink in the Strangers’ bar only then to abstain in person so that the Government lost a vote of no confidence. So, this is power politics. We’ve seen it all before and no doubt we’ll see it again. I congratulate the DUP on the deal that they’ve done with the Government. In fact, they’re such good negotiators, I think they should be in charge of the Brexit negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] But for the First Minister to complain about this—

Are you taking the intervention?

[Continues.]—in an extended display of sour grapes, I think, and is quite—I give way to Dafydd.

I’m grateful to him for making the reference to the 1970s, because I also remember this period extremely well. I was in the bar the very night—[Laughter.]—the two Irish colleagues, Gerry Fitt and Frank Maguire, arrived to abstain in person.

But the difference, surely, is this: that, in this case, this deal is being made with a massive subvention totally outwith the normal constitutional and financial arrangements and totally outwith the Barnett formula. The deals that were made between Labour and ourselves and other parties, in the times of Wilson and Callaghan, were deals that were made openly on a limited scale. They weren’t intended to prop up a Government for five years.

Well, the DUP are obviously better negotiators than their counterparts in those days. We have to remember that the Barnett formula itself, of course, is a product of those negotiations, something that is inherently unfair to Wales, quite regardless of these negotiations, because, on a per capita basis, of course, Wales, as the leader of Plaid Cymru very rightly pointed out, gets a very raw deal indeed.

But why are they not entering into negotiations with the United Kingdom Government to get a better deal for Wales? They’re in opposition to the Government, as indeed are the DUP, technically, and they could be doing a deal to get exactly what she claims to have wanted on behalf of the people of Wales. But because of her bigoted and blinkered refusal even to contemplate talking to, let alone negotiating with, a Conservative Government, she denies the people of Wales the benefits that she claims to want.

Therefore, that speech was pure humbug and hypocrisy, because she does have power, through her four Members of Parliament at Westminster, to influence the negotiating process, because the Government only has a bare majority anyway with the votes of the DUP. So, if she really wants to say, for example, on the Circuit of Wales project, we could make a change to the accounting conventions—that appears to be the only reason that the deal has been scuppered by the Welsh Government—in exchange for their votes, why doesn’t she do that? Answer—[Interruption.]

Does he agree with me that, if Plaid Cymru had done a deal with the Conservative Government, it would have given them 322 seats and, excluding Sinn Féin, that would have been an overall majority? We could have got quite some things for Wales with that, couldn’t we?

Indeed. Well, for once, my former colleague talks sense—[Laughter.]—as he always used to. But that is exactly the—. We are in the era of power politics. There’s no good complaining about unfairness—life is unfair, as we know. Goodness knows, I’ve been on the receiving end of so much unfairness in the course of my life and I make no complaint about that, of course. I must be a masochist to be in politics at my age. But, nevertheless, the DUP have done what they were elected to do—get the best deal for Northern Ireland.

What is Plaid Cymru doing? They’ve been elected to get the best deal for Wales but they’ve utterly failed to take up the opportunity. In fact, the Welsh Labour Party in the last general election did as much as it possibly could to pretend they were no part of the Labour Party nationally and that Jeremy Corbyn didn’t exist. Why don’t they use the independence that they sought to persuade the Welsh people that they had from Labour nationally to do a deal with Theresa May themselves? They could transform British politics by breaking away from the Labour Party nationally and doing what they claim to want also—a deal in the interests of the people of Wales.

So, I’m afraid, although I very much welcome the opportunity for us to debate this matter today, that the debate is actually just an exercise in humbug, hypocrisy and sour grapes. Theresa May did get the largest number of seats. The DUP are prepared to do a deal. They’ve got a deal. Yes, we are the losers, but who’s responsible for that? Not them, but Plaid Cymru, the Labour Party, and their little helper from Brecon and Radnor.

I’ve sat in this Chamber now for over 10 years and like others, during that time, I’ve listened to the Tories plead for money—money to be spent on all public services without exception. And I dare say that we will hear those pleas again. I think the best thing that the Tory group, or the Conservative group, over there can do now is actually take that begging bowl to Westminster and ask them to shake their magic money tree, because they found it, and they found it in abundance, at the cost of the people you should be representing. So, that’s the first bit of advice that I would give to them. But I want to move on to Crabb and Cairns et al. They are supposed to be representing Wales. So, I put on the television and I waited last night for them to say something that would actually give something to the Welsh public who would expect them to stand up for Wales. Well, I was sorely disappointed, and I’m sure that the people of Wales were equally disappointed.

So, we heard Crabb, that is Stephen Crabb, the MP for Preseli, Pembrokeshire—just, I have to add, just—and he was previously the welfare secretary. And it was the same Stephen Crabb who supported a cut for disabled benefit claimants of £30 a week. He justified that by using public money, that is taxpayers’ money, ‘wisely’, so that people could help themselves. So, I expected him to say something on behalf of the people in Pembrokeshire and the people of Wales that would be in line with using taxpayers’ money from Wales for the good of the people in Wales. But what did he say? And I want to quote this, what he actually said was, ‘Well, it’s the cost of doing business’. Now, according to ‘The Independent’ online, that’s a phrase that usually applies to companies describing the paying of bribes to obtain deals in overseas markets. It’s not usually a term that’s applied to Government. If we are talking about using public money, taxpayers’ money, from across the UK solely to keep the Tories in power, with £1 billion-worth over two years, I want to put a question to Cairns and Crabb et al: that is 97 per cent of the taxpayers who are paying this don’t actually live in Northern Ireland, yet it is Northern Ireland who are going to see all the benefit.

So, I want to move on now to look at Cairns. I want to look at what Cairns said. So, I thought that as Secretary of State for Wales he would actually have something to say about Wales, and about bringing money to Wales—and, yes, I did name-check it, you’re absolutely right, he is the Secretary of State of Wales—and very proud, he stood up and he defended the indefensible. He thought that it was perfectly fine to give money towards Northern Ireland. No mention of Wales, of course. No mention of standing up for Wales. Maybe he ought to consider his position. Maybe he needs to think about where he stands and who he represents. It would have been nice to have that same £1 billion in Wales. It would have been nice to have it to spend on our NHS, our schools, our roads. Next time, when the Conservatives bring a debate and they ask us for more money, I hope that they will consider taking that begging bowl, taking it to Westminster, and asking for the redistribution of wealth that, actually, we should have been afforded as well.

Well, we are, at the moment, dealing with the general election result, and it did generate only two viable options. One was a minority Conservative Government—the one I, incidentally, favoured, but that would have been fragile, obviously—or, secondly, a combination with the DUP to create a confidence and supply agreement. There was no other combination that could have produced a Government for this country and, clearly, the Prime Minister decided that the need to negotiate a successful Brexit required that greater security of a confidence and supply agreement. It’s on that basis that some cost has been exacted. I’m not surprised that that is now being scrutinised and, of course, it’s quite appropriate that it is.

I have to say, before I get to that, I do find this combination between the Conservative Party and the DUP tricky, because of Northern Ireland’s exceptional status in the UK’s politics. We now have a British Government reliant on an Irish party for the first time since 1910. Like John Major, I note the complications this could introduce to the peace process. However, the extensive financial package that the DUP has negotiated could, at least, assist the re-establishment of the power-sharing Executive. It had been placed under some strain by—let’s call it—austerity politics, before even the biomass heating controversy brought things to a complete halt. As a point of statecraft—and I know the First Minister takes a great interest in the politics of Northern Ireland—I do hope that we will see a chance now for all the parties to work together and to use their additional resources productively.

I note that both the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have indicated and, indeed, that was repeated this afternoon here, that they’ll instigate the formal dispute mechanism. I think that’s a responsible thing to do if you believe the dispute is of enough gravity to require that, and I’m sure you will make the case very strongly. It is clear, I think—even on this side of the house we have to recognise it—that the deal with the DUP has wider implications, and it does, I concede, pose some serious challenges to the Welsh Conservative Party and to the Scottish Conservatives. However, some of the criticisms that we’ve heard this afternoon have been the stuff of simple partisan conflict. I do think we need a degree of moderation and proportion when we look at these issues, because we are talking about the peace process, Brexit and the future structure of our state, and it does call for statecraft, as well as making more immediate points of impartisan dialogue. We have heard that Gordon Brown, in the dying days of his premiership, did approach the DUP, and, presumably, he would have been faced with the similar difficulties of involving not a party of an ideological stamp—

Will you take an intervention?

[Continues.]—but one that represents a very particular part of the United Kingdom and doesn’t have a wider mandate than that.

I’d rather not, and I think you’re going to speak in the debate, but if you press me, I will give way, but I still have a few things I want to say that I think the Assembly would like to hear. Do you want me to give way?

If you don’t mind. I think it was Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the former head of the Treasury, who stood down last year, who said

‘£1 billion for Ulster is just a downpayment. DUP will be back for more’

So, in terms of the consistency of this arrangement moving forward, are you concerned about that?

Well, time will tell on the stability of this whole arrangement. My own view, and I’m now going to get into awful trouble, is that it’s anyone’s guess after the Brexit negotiations are over. But I do think we need to stand up for Wales. That’s why the National Assembly is here. In times of debating the allocation of resources of the UK state, of which we are part and we’ve generated those resources from time immemorial, obviously, there’s a constant debate about what is the fair share. I do believe that part of what I would say is the £1 billion two-year deal that Northern Ireland’s got should be Barnettised. But I do want to be restrained in what I’m going to call for, because I think some of the claims are very much overinflated.

In terms of infrastructure, we already have—quite often, anyway—a bilateral approach to this, and I think it’s in the future calls that we will make for special projects that we will need to ensure that Wales gets its fair share. The tidal lagoon is a very obvious one that is now looming.

However, I am troubled about the implications of some of the revenue expenditure—which I put at about £450 million over two years for Northern Ireland—not being Barnettised, because I do not think this sets a good precedent for the United Kingdom. Some of those increases I think can be justified for Northern Ireland on the basis that it will aid the peace process, and there is precedent for this. But I do think that some of this money needs to be Barnettised, and I do call on the UK Government to reconsider this aspect of the deal that they have just negotiated, and to think in terms of the Scottish and the Welsh budgets.

Can I conclude—you’ve been very generous, Presiding Officer—by saying in terms of where our state goes after Brexit and also reflecting on this experience, that we do need to see a block grant system being replaced by some form of Treasury grant that is overseen by an independent grant commission? That could still allow special payments in exceptional circumstances, but I think it’s that sort of stability that we will need for the British state once it negotiates the rapids we’re now facing in terms of the Brexit process. Thank you.

I’m pleased to follow David Melding, who made the most coherent attempt to set out any justification for the situation we’re in, and I’ll certainly join with him in saying we must now stand up for Wales.

But let’s examine the position we’re in. By negotiating this deal, we have a Conservative-led administration in Westminster that has, in effect, exactly the majority that it had before the general election when it said that that majority was not strong and stable enough to take it through the Brexit negotiations. And I feel that really, really tells on the very precarious situation that Westminster is in. I don’t think this Government will last a Brexit round of negotiations, but time will tell, as David Melding says.

Now, the payment that has been done to allow this to happen, which is about £100 million per DUP MP—which is more than Gareth Bale got transferred for, by the way—does bring into focus just how desperate Theresa May and the Conservative Party are to stay in Government, or rather to avoid another general election for the suspicion that they have of where it may lead them. And I think it’s best crystallised in this quotation, which was said only today:

‘This is a deeply divided country and singling out one part of it in order to give a semblance of short term stability is just one more of the prices we are paying for the consequences of Brexit.’

That was Lord Heseltine. That was Lord Heseltine speaking on Scottish radio today. I always thought it would be the unionists that destroyed the union, and I’m even more convinced of it now.

Let’s examine what the financial support is for Northern Ireland, because I think it does bear some examination. A lot of people have talked about it being a three-page confidence and supply document; in fact, there are another three pages. The other three pages are about the financial arrangements and there is quite some detail there on the financial arrangements. Infrastructure development in Northern Ireland—£200 million per year for two years for the York Street interchange project. I don’t know what that is. The First Minister may know through his family connections what that is, but what I do know is that that is a predetermination before you get an executive elected in Northern Ireland, and that’s a DUP priority that’s been funded. Seventy five million pounds per year for two years to provide ultrafast broadband for Northern Ireland. Well, we could do with £75 million per year for ultrafast broadband here in Wales as well. A commitment that the needs of Northern Ireland are properly reflected in the future UK shared prosperity fund. We’ve had no such commitment yet—no such written commitment from the Westminster Government that this shared prosperity fund, which is replacing, of course, the EU structural funds, is going to deliver that well for Wales. A commitment to utilise networks of embassies and high commissions to promote Northern Ireland as a location for foreign direct investment. Promote Northern Ireland above Scotland, above Wales, above the regions of England—what does this mean? A future commitment to work towards the devolution of corporation tax rates—something that has been denied the other parts of the United Kingdom—with options developed for the autumn budget this year. A commitment to city deals across Northern Ireland. Now, this is what just makes Alun Cairns’s remarks that this is some kind of a super city deal an utter nonsense because they get this deal, and they get city deals and they get enterprise zones. So, they’re getting everything we get plus the billion. This is not just breaking Barnett, it’s trashing it and trampling it into the mud.

In order to target pockets of severe deprivation—and I accept there’s severe deprivation in Northern Ireland—the UK Government will provide £20 million per year for five years. It’s not a two-year deal; this is five years. That’s £100 million to support the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver the measures around tourism. An additional £50 million for two years to address immediate pressure in health and education. Well, yes, we could do with those. And then, £100 million for two years to support the Northern Ireland Executive’s delivery of its priority of health service transformation. We don’t have a Northern Ireland Executive yet, and yet they’re already talking about its own priority. Of course, this, in effect, could be delivered by the Westminster Government through direct rule, which will lead to even more problems.

And then a final thing—flexibility for remaining funding from previous allocations for shared education and housing to be dispersed flexibly within this spending review period. In other words, none of the Treasury rules on transfers of money from one year to another in education or housing will now apply in Northern Ireland. I don’t know how long we’ve been arguing for that—at least 10 years, at least 10 years. It does make you think: you make a sensible, coherent argument based on the economy, based on the well-being of your people, and all you’re told is that some strong-arm politics are going to win the game. Well, I say this isn’t strong-arm politics; this is desperate measures and an unstable Government that will fail. It will fail, if nothing else, on this, the final bit of the agreement and the financial part, which talks about the legacy and says this:

‘Both parties reiterate their admiration for the courage and sacrifice of the police and armed forces in upholding democracy and the rule of law and will never forget the debt of gratitude that we owe them.’

Now, in any other context, that’s a platitude and we’d all sign up to it. In the Northern Ireland context, that is dynamite—quite literally, dynamite.

I would like to thank the First Minister, actually, for his response yesterday to the confidence and supply agreement. I thought his anger—his anger—at the agreement was palpable yesterday, and it was very clear, the dissatisfaction, not just from Wales but also from Scotland, at the fact that today you can have cash for votes. That’s what’s happened here. Some people in this Chamber might be more familiar with cash for questions; cash for votes is worse. Cash for votes is worse and that’s what we are talking about here.

Can I just say that the other point that I think is worth underlining is that this won’t be the end of it? This won’t be the end of it. They’ll be back for more. That’s one of the terrifying things about this. This is just the beginning of the negotiation. They’ve locked them in for a couple of years. If they can grab onto power for the five years that they are supposed to hold on to power, then we will be talking about even more funding that is being shoved down their throats. That is not acceptable. And who is this DUP that’s propping up a tottering Tory Government? Who are they? Well, they’ve got pretty questionable views on abortion and they’ve got unpalatable views on gay rights. But, more than anything else, do you know what worries me? It’s that they are politically and economically incompetent. They were brought down because they offered to pay people £160 to burn £100-worth of fuel. It’s a ridiculous situation. There was no upper limit to the amount that they could be paid and that’s what brought the situation to a head in Stormont. They’ve got into bed with people who are simply incompetent, and I think that should also be underlined.

But, more than that, there were successive Governments in this country who fought and worked tirelessly to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. The fact is that there is a resolution that is lodged in the United Nations that suggests that the United Kingdom Government should be an honest broker in the negotiations in Northern Ireland. That is simply not possible when the UK Tory Government is in bed with one of the parties. It is not possible to be an honest broker and I wonder how on earth that situation is going to play out.

Brexit—there’s a blank cheque on Brexit. They have literally said, ‘Anything you want. Anything you want on this, we will sign up to.’ The only point they’ve made is they want a soft border with Northern Ireland. Now, I welcome—I think it’s really important to have a soft border with Northern Ireland, but I am terribly concerned that we will see a hard border with Wales. Now, where are these Tory MPs from Wales, shouting and making sure that we don’t have a hard border if they’re having a soft border with Northern Ireland? I think people in Wales who are sick and deserve to be treated well by the NHS are the same kind of sick people who are sick in Northern Ireland; they deserve the same kind of services.

The statement suggests, finally, that it wants to strengthen and enhance the union. I believe that this agreement will drive a wedge through our country and our Celtic cousins, and I, personally, severely lament that fact.

I’m pleased that we are able to air our thoughts on the confidence and supply agreement between the Conservative majority in the House of Commons and the DUP, although I think that some of the commentary so far has been so predictable.

This election proved a challenge for all of the main parties. Despite voting for Brexit, the electorate were not clear in giving the Conservatives the mandate they need for getting the will of the people done, and it is my view that that lack of clarity will affect the deal that any Government would be able to strike. Nonetheless, the Conservatives’ share of the vote did see an increase of over 5 per cent since the last general election, and at 318 we are the largest party in Westminster. We increased the share of vote in Wales—in fact, it’s been the best vote in Wales since at least 1935. And I think that this is really important, because the election proved a challenge for all parties.

It proved a challenge for the Labour Party, who are now lumbered with a leader that Carwyn Jones and most of the elected Welsh Members here have spent time trying to distance themselves from. Who would have formed a Government if not the Conservatives? Or were you all recommending that we should ask the public to go straight away to another general election? Huge tensions remain within Welsh Labour between those loyal to Corbyn and those who disowned his leadership, and it’s only a matter of time before this discord is again played out in public.

Having lost 15 deposits, I would have thought that Plaid Cymru would have been more alive to this opportunity, because why is it that Plaid Cymru MPs didn’t use any of their possible leverage for Wales? I think that Neil Hamilton—or, in fact, I think it was Mark Reckless and Neil Hamilton—did make that point really clearly about the mathematics of the situation. It could have helped, because you’re absolutely right, we need to be honest, as Leanne Wood kept saying. Is it right, for example, that Liz Saville-Roberts wanted to do a deal, but the leader of Plaid Cymru refused?

All this nonsensical cavilling over the confidence and supply agreement. Coalitions and confidence and supply agreements are commonplace in politics. There’s one now in place between Labour and Plaid, and there’s a lack of transparency on their concord. What have they actually signed up to? Scotland has also experienced such agreements between the Conservatives and the SNP. At a UK level, there have been six coalitions over the last 120 years, including the most recent one. And we should remember that the Labour Party clung onto power by agreeing a deal with the Lib Dems, which enabled Jim Callaghan to see out his term of office.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, indeed I will, Rhun.

Would you agree that the group of eight Conservative Members of Parliament from Wales could also hold Theresa May to ransom over this?

If you’d like to wait until the end of my speech, I might just answer your question for you.

Across Europe and many other parts of the world, such deals are common. And let us be clear: you don’t like it, you can’t get over it, but with the most seats and the most votes, only the Conservative Party has the ability and the legitimacy to form the next Government. Do I agree with the DUP on many of their positions on social issues? Absolutely not. But this will provide the certainty and stability the whole country needs as we embark on Brexit and beyond, and that’s what we have to concentrate on.

I speak as somebody who wanted to remain within the European Union. Looks like we’re going out, and not a lot we can do about it at the moment. But my goodness, if we’re going out, we go out with the best possible deal and I want us to have a strong UK Government to do that. And let me be clear—

Rhianon Passmore rose—

No. And let me be clear, I am a Conservative, but above all, I am a Welsh Conservative, so I, for one, will be doing my level best to make sure that Wales gets its fair share. I do understand that Northern Ireland is a special case and does need extra investment. With no representation from the mainland political parties and only the Conservatives standing in some seats over there, it often does not get the voice it needs at Westminster. This deal will give it that voice, and, sadly, I do respect the DUP for finding and using that voice. We have to ask ourselves, when criticising the deal, whether anyone in this Chamber would have wanted to live under the conditions that existed in Northern Ireland during the Troubles and the damage they did to attracting inward investment and infrastructure improvements.

However—[Interruption.] However, I want to see positive progress from Westminster on the tidal lagoon. I want to see positive progress from Westminster on electrification. I accept that the scrapping of the tolls on the Severn bridge will come in under secondary legislation, but I also want to see the Barnett formula apply to elements of the confidence and supply agreement, such as health and education. And don’t keep talking to me about pork barrel politics: the Llandeilo bypass comes to mind as an absolute example.

Simon Thomas did actually make some very sensible commentary about the financial aspects of the confidence and supply agreement, and I believe all of us should put aside the toxicity that has gripped politics for so long. We need to work, all 60 of us, and our Welsh MPs of every hue, to get the best deal for Wales. We should press on the weaknesses within those financial settlements to make sure that we are not left behind. We should press for progress on all of these issues and that’s what my colleagues in the Welsh Conservatives will be doing.

Let’s be clear on context: we recently had a general election that has eviscerated this Tory Government. Its majority has been destroyed and Theresa May’s authority has been smashed. It is difficult to ever remember a campaign where a Prime Minister has sought to actively fight a campaign without meeting the public or answering any questions. It was bizarre to see the Tories run a presidential campaign where their prime candidate was too scared to even appear on ‘Women’s Hour’. Strong and stable turned to weak and wobbly as fast as jelly left out in the sun. We were told by the Tories that they were the ace negotiators needed for Brexit, yet it took a whole two weeks to secure the support of the Democratic Unionist Party. Two weeks to buy the votes of DUP Members of Parliament who, vote by vote, troop into the same lobbies as the Tory party anyway.

The First Minister called it fairly and squarely, and that is indeed that this is a £1 billion bung. Indeed, the Tory benches opposite like to lecture us on prudent bookkeeping, the merits of austerity and how you need to spend money wisely. So, let’s quote from today’s ‘The Times’ and see whether the Members opposite can justify the throwing of £1 billion of taxpayers’ money to Northern Ireland to just avoid facing the wrath of the British public at another general election. I quote,

‘Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that Northern Ireland already has the highest public expenditure per person but make the lowest tax contribution.’

No wonder then that, across the United Kingdom, from Glastonbury to the SSE Swalec stadium on Sunday, crowds sang Jeremy Corbyn’s name. The abiding principle of the Labour Party, for the many and not the few, has now become a patriotic call to arms.

So, where will and where does this Tory buy-out end? And I repeat my question: does anybody seriously think that the DUP will not be back for more? All of this outside of the DUP’s horrific record, as has been mentioned, on equality, abortion, climate change and a Victorian attitude to gay rights.

We all know that the Prime Minister is, as George Osborne memorably stated ‘a dead woman walking’. A dead woman walking and a zombie Government. Indeed, the paralysis in Downing Street is so bad that speculation has centred on the Chancellor becoming a caretaker Prime Minister, and let us not forget that ‘Spreadsheet Phil’ was due his P45 before the Prime Minister suffered such a derisory election result. How can this hollow shadow of a Prime Minister stand up to those canny and very experienced negotiators of the DUP? As I said, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the former head of the Treasury, who stood down as Permanent Secretary last year, said,

‘£1 billion for Ulster is just a downpayment. DUP will be back for more...again and again... They have previous in such matters.’

This Tory-DUP supply and confidence agreement is truly shocking, and in my view, an epitaph to this Tory Government. In fact, Bruce Reynolds and Ronnie Biggs would have been proud of this smash-and-grab raid that has been undertaken on the UK Treasury, but it is sadly Wales who is the victim of this great political robbery. First Minister, I know you will not stint or falter in your efforts to stand up for Wales and stand up for our Welsh citizens. It is right that any funding that goes to Northern Ireland should mean Wales does get its fair share under the Barnett formula, and it is true that the people of Wales are sick of the Tories lecturing us that there is no alternative to austerity. So, I call on the leader of the Welsh Conservatives to denounce the Prime Minister’s discovery of the magic money tree, which showers gold to save itself, but delivers dead leaves for those in poverty. Theresa May, we know, is no friend of the leader of the Welsh Tories, but she certainly, certainly, is no friend of the people of Wales.

The First Minister has rightly said that, as currently drafted, the deal between the Conservatives and the DUP all but kills the idea of fair funding for the nations and regions. This deal flies in the face of fairness, full stop. It is dismaying, disappointing and deeply disturbing that Theresa May has cobbled together a deal with a party with such a terrible track record when it comes to equality. It would seem that Theresa May cares more about clinging to power than our basic human rights. The DUP has been consistently visceral in its opposition to LGBT rights. It staunchly opposes same-sex marriage, and has vetoed several attempts to pass new legislation, as a consequence treating us and telling LGBT people that we are second-class citizens.

Ian Paisley Jr has previously called homosexuality immoral, offensive and obnoxious, and said that he was repulsed by gays and lesbians. Well I’m sure the vast majority of us are likewise repulsed by Ian Paisley Jr’s obnoxious bigotry, intolerance and discrimination. The First Minister, in his opening, said the deal undermines the very spirit of fairness and solidarity. I think, now, we must still stand in the spirit of solidarity, and it’s paramount for all fair and progressive politicians to call out this deal with the DUP, and speak up for the equalities and the rights of all LGBT citizens—not just here in Wales, but across the UK and including Northern Ireland.

I call on the First Minister to close the debate.

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’.

And that concludes the urgent debate.