Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think in 10 years that I have worked in some shape of form around this Assembly, I haven’t seen a motion that made my skin crawl more than the one before us today. I don’t say that the purpose or amount of overseas aid is not a subject for considered and well-argued debate—it clearly is. But not even the fig leaf worn by Neil Hamilton to hide his modesty on the pages of ‘GQ’ magazine could hide the shameless way that UKIP are trying to take an issue not related to Assembly powers, barely tangentially related to our representative role as AMs, in order to feed right-wing red meat to their few remaining supporters.

This motion is misleading and inaccurate and I will demonstrate why. It refers to an arbitrary gross domestic product target of 0.7 per cent for overseas aid. There’s nothing arbitrary about it, as David Melding has just pointed out—it has a long and thoroughly worked out international history. Indeed, it’s such a recognised target that Neil Hamilton stood for election on a manifesto commitment to this target, because the 1997 Conservative manifesto said this:

We will continue to maintain a significant bilateral and multilateral aid programme reflecting the aspiration of meeting the UN’s target of 0.7% of GDP for aid as a long-term objective.’

So, Neil Hamilton stood for election on such a manifesto. He’s even—[Interruption] No, you’ve had your bile. You’ve had your opportunity to give your bile to this place. He’s even partly responsible for the fact that we have this 0.7 per cent, because after my old colleague Martin Bell defeated him in Tatton, the Conservatives of Tatton had to find a clean skin, and the clean skin they found was one George Osborne who then, when he was Chancellor in 2013, exactly introduced this commitment of 0.7 per cent, so Neil Hamilton is doubly to blame for the situation we’re in.

The next part of the motion complains about the UK national debt of £1.6 trillion. Well, again, who’s responsible for that UK debt? The long-term economic plan supported by the Conservatives, supported by, sadly, the Liberal Democrats, but also supported by Messrs Reckless and Carswell, who always consistently voted for the budget process that has led to us having a £1.6 trillion national debt. I’m delighted to see Mark Reckless in this place. I thought the submarine strategy of the Conservative group wasn’t going to let him up to breathe anymore, but he has met us with—