Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We seem to have hit a target here, from the reaction of other Members. We’ve interrupted the cosy consensus that existed before we arrived. That’s what a democratic Assembly is for. I thank those who took part in the debate: Steffan Lewis, Julie Morgan, David Melding, Caroline Jones, Gareth Bennett, David Rowlands, John Griffiths and Joyce Watson. I have no thanks, of course, for Simon Thomas, for making his vile, crude, intemperate, personally abusive and misrepresentative speech, dredging up from the depths of the internet some of the lies and libels that have been told about me by his political confederates, no doubt, previously. But I don’t intend to dip my toes in the sump of his speech. I’ll leave him to wallow in his own filth quite happily.

But, in order to respond to the rest of the debate, I will just say I don’t think that honourable Members can have been listening to the way that I opened my speech, or can have read the motion. Because the many examples of good aid that have been mentioned in the course of the debate today—and some of which were mentioned in the speech, certainly, of Caroline Jones—would receive almost universal acclaim and, certainly, are supported by UKIP.

I started my speech by saying that only 16 per cent of the aid budget goes on projects of that kind; 84 per cent goes on long-term strategic political goal type of aid of the kinds that I mentioned in climate change, et cetera, et cetera. It’s this kind of Government-to-Government aid or Government-through international-agency aid, as David Melding would’ve put it, that ought to be questioned. Now, the 0.7 per cent of GDP figure is an arbitrary one; it doesn’t have any objective justification at all. It can’t have; it’s a subjective figure—it could be 0.6, it could be 1.6, it could be 10.6. And so the opportunity for virtue signalling—which has been seized by many Members around the Chamber today to advertise what they see as their moral superiority over us on these benches—in how to spend other people’s money is something that is not a question of principle, but only a question of degree. Because it only starts to be morally advantageous when it starts to hurt, and I don’t know whether the amount that individual Members contribute from their own resources every year to—[Interruption.] I don’t when—[Interruption.] Yes, plenty. No doubt the education Secretary, who lives a very comfortable life indeed—. I don’t think it makes a great deal of impact upon her lifestyle whatever she gives in charity to other causes. I’m not making any—[Interruption.] I’m not making any personal remark; I’m responding—[Interruption.] I’m responding—[Interruption.] I’m responding to the implicit—[Interruption.] I’m responding to the implicit argument in that—