HIV and World AIDS Day

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

As chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, may I first offer a whole hearted tribute to the bravery, courage and example of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle)? He has not only shared with us his own very personal experiences in such a clear and honest way that will have an impact in this country and globally; he has also—I would expect nothing less from him—not shied away from the fact that HIV is political. He has mentioned many of the issues still faced by those living with HIV in this country and around the globe, including stigma, discrimination and a lack of access to services. If any message goes out from here today, it should be that we need to continue the fight and end this by 2030, and we can end it. After the example that my hon. Friend has shown today, I am all the more confident that we will do so.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend on behalf of other vice-chairs who wanted to be here but could not—Baroness Barker, Lord Black, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams)—and who are incredibly proud of what he has done today.

As my hon. Friend said, the situation has dramatically transformed since the first World Aids Day 30 years ago. I remember coming to these issues while working in the international development sector for World Vision, Oxfam and others, and I look back at some of the horrific statistics, particularly on young people orphaned or made vulnerable, on those living with HIV and on those dying from AIDS. We saw this as an unreachable mountain that could not be overcome. The progress that has been made over the past 15 years is remarkable, but we must not have a slipping back in that progress.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I would like to express, on my own behalf and that of my SNP colleagues who cannot be here, our commendation for the incredibly powerful and moving testimony that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) has given. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is absolutely correct that that speech will be heard not just here, and not just across this country, but around the world. It provides an opportunity to tackle the stigma that is still associated with HIV in so many parts of the world and that prevents people seeking the treatment, or even the diagnosis, that they need, despite all the opportunities and all the funding that is provided. There has to be a change of mindset as well. So we are thoroughly behind what we are hearing today.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and completely agree with what he has said.

As my hon. Friend said, access to antiretroviral treatments has revolutionised both treatment and prevention. That has enabled many HIV-positive people to achieve viral suppression where the level of HIV in the blood is so low that it is undetectable and, crucially—we have to emphasise this—untransmittable to others. U=U—undetectable equals untransmittable—is one of the messages that must ring loud and clear from his speech and from this House. It has transformed the medical understanding of HIV from a fatal and emergency disease to one that is chronic and manageable, and where people can live long, happy, healthy lives.

But we must recognise the challenges that exist, particularly internationally, among the world’s 36.9 million people living with HIV. That is still a huge figure. One in four remain unaware of their HIV status. Among those who have tested HIV-positive, 21% globally do not have access to treatment and, of those who have access to antiretroviral treatment, 19% have not yet achieved viral suppression.

I want to turn briefly to some of the key challenges that we face in the UK, which my hon. Friend laid out. Forty-one per cent. of people are still diagnosed late and one in eight people living with HIV do not know their status. In October, we held an event here where we heard from a lady who preferred not to use her real name who had been diagnosed with HIV in her late 50s. She had been left with lifelong physical complications and, tragically, suffered a mental health breakdown because of the extreme stress caused by the diagnosis, the lack of support, the fear, the stigma and the discrimination that she thought she would experience. Holding back tears, she told that room full of strangers that she had been unable to share her HIV status with her friends or family. That shows the courage of the example set by my hon. Friend today. Unfortunately, there are still many people out there, including many I know, who would not have the confidence to do this or even to share their status in private circumstances. We have to turn that around and end the stigma and discrimination.

I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend said about PrEP. It is simply extraordinary that we are still waiting for the English NHS to make this routinely available. People have told me this week that they want to access PrEP and cannot do so. That simply cannot be the right way forward, from a purely public health point of view, from a rights point of view, and from a cost point of view. In all respects, it is wrong. I hope that the Minister can give us some positive news on that and that we will see the progress that we have seen in the other nations. I pay tribute, as my hon. Friend did, to our Labour Health Secretary in Wales who has shown quite a lot of political and practical leadership, as a Minister, on this issue.

I was disappointed when we had the Department of Health and Social Care prevention strategy last month. there is much in there for us all to agree with, while it failed to mention sexual health at all. That was a huge disappointment because there is a huge amount in the strategy that very much applies to the agenda that we have been talking about today. I hope that the Minister can explain what the Department is going to do to ensure sexual health and HIV prevention are at the heart of that prevention strategy for the NHS overall. I also emphasise what my hon. Friend said about demand for sexual health services rising and the challenges facing particular communities, whether the BME community, the LGBT community, young people, sex workers or injecting drug users. Sometimes we shy away from talking about unfashionable and difficult topics in this House, but we need to have honest and frank conversations if we are going to end HIV and AIDS in this country.

Globally, there are still 15 million people who are not accessing treatment because of inadequate health systems and funding, discriminatory laws, stigma and discrimination, and colonial-era laws that ensure that people do not get the treatment they need. The UK needs to lead the way in ending HIV stigma for good and supporting these programmes through the work of the Department for International Development.

I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who announced at the AIDS conference in Amsterdam an increase in funding for the Robert Carr Fund, for which so many of us have campaigned, and support for civil society organisations to support key populations.

It was inspiring yesterday to hear from not only a young female AIDS activist from Zimbabwe called Audrey, but two former Presidents—the former President of Botswana, Festus Mogae, and the former President of Mozambique, Joaquim Chissano. President Mogae spoke to us in a way that I did not expect. He spoke about all the things that we know we need to do to tackle HIV, but he stood up as a former African leader and said, “We need to address the needs of the LGBT population, the needs of the trans population, the needs of sex workers and the needs of injecting drug users.” That sent an incredibly strong signal to leaders across Africa and the world that we must talk about these issues and take action on them, and I hope the UK will continue to provide that crucial support.

I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown for his courage and bravery and the message that it sends. I hope the Minister will have some hopeful words for us about the situation in the UK. I want to end by thanking all the organisations that do so much to support our APPG’s work, including the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, STOPAIDS, Youth Stop AIDS, the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV and so many more. I thank all the organisations that are active in our communities and, I am sorry to say, are filling the gaps left by cuts to provision. They are out there making the case, supporting people living with HIV and taking us all down the road to ending this epidemic by 2030.

Welsh Affairs

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stephen Doughty

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely, and I think my hon. Friend makes a number of important points that the House will take on board. Tourism is absolutely vital to economies across the United Kingdom and will only become more so in the years to come. I will look briefly in my remarks at the impact of Brexit on the economy, but I know that a large number of Members from Wales want to speak, so I will be as brief as I can.

I want to look at some of the key challenges and opportunities that are facing Wales and its people, particularly in the context of the devolution journey and Brexit. It is more than 20 years since the first devolution referendums, and next year will mark 20 years since the devolved institutions first met. Matters such as health, education and transport have been and continue to be decided by the people of Scotland and Wales. In recent months and years, Scotland has welcomed the further devolution of powers on matters such as income tax, which is now under the remit of the Scottish Parliament. Wales is also in the process of seeing further devolution on issues such as transport, energy and electoral arrangements.

The devolved powers that we have in Scotland have allowed us to make many decisions that are different from those affecting people elsewhere in the United Kingdom. For example, nobody in Scotland pays the pernicious bedroom tax. The Scottish Government spent more than £125 million between 2013 and 2017 on mitigating that. Unfortunately, I do not think the same can be said yet in Wales. We also see some divergence in areas such as public sector pay. The Scottish Government have lifted the cap on wage rises for public sector workers, meaning, for example, that a nurse earning £30,000 a year will get a 3% rise in the coming financial year. That is in stark contrast, unfortunately, to the Welsh Administration, who insist that Westminster needs to loosen the purse strings before they take action.

Although I might not agree with all the decisions that the Administration in Wales are making right now, it is certainly to be celebrated that those decisions are being made in Wales, and it demonstrates that there is still a strong case for even further devolution to Wales. A good example of that is policing. In Scotland, we have devolved responsibility for policing, and recorded crime is now at its lowest level for over 40 years. That is in no small part thanks to the Scottish Government’s commitment to an extra 1,000 police officers, and is set against the stark backdrop of Westminster-led austerity and falling police figures in England. In Wales, there are 750 fewer police officers than there were in 2010—a 10% drop since the Tories came to power at Westminster.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s point, although I put the blame firmly on the Tory UK Government for the police cuts. Does he recognise, though, that thanks to the Welsh Labour Government there has been huge investment in police community support officers, which has kept them on our streets and made a big difference in my local communities?

[Patrick Grady]

It is important that efforts are made by the devolved Assemblies wherever possible. I have seen figures from Dyfed-Powys police showing that were policing to be fully devolved to Wales and funded per head of population, Welsh forces would be £25 million better off. We welcome the UK Government’s recent decision finally to allow the Scottish integrated police service to reclaim the VAT it is owed. We are looking for a refund and hope that similar progress can be made in Wales. That demonstrates the strength of devolution. I should also pay tribute to my friends in Plaid for the influence that they are exerting on the Welsh Administration. I hope that one day they will exert even more influence by taking full control.

As with so much, however, all that is overshadowed by Brexit. The Secretary of State has championed the Welsh economy and its great trading relationship with the EU, but the Government’s own analysis shows that Wales will be one of the parts of the UK that bear the brunt of Brexit. If we crash out on World Trade Organisation terms, we are looking at a contraction of almost 10% in the Welsh economy, meaning huge cuts in wages and potentially thousands of jobs lost. Some 200,000 Welsh jobs are based on trade within the single market and the customs union, and Wales is a net beneficiary of EU funding by around £245 million, or £79 per head. All that is at risk from an extreme Tory Brexit, and the only solution that can guarantee frictionless trade is continued membership of “the” single market and “the” customs union.

Of course, we are having this debate on the day when the House of Peers is debating clause 11 of the EU withdrawal Bill—the great power grab of the great repeal Bill. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have a unity of purpose at present and are doing a fantastic job of defending not only Scottish and Welsh interests but the very foundation of the devolution settlement from the crude attack being perpetrated by the Tories here at Westminster. We have seen the Cabinet Office list outlining 24 areas of devolved competence in Wales that it wants to snatch back, which is why Plaid was right to introduce the continuity Bill in the National Assembly for Wales as a way to safeguard the devolution settlement from the Tories’ power grab.

The Tory Government here always speak of the will of the people, but as we heard from the Labour Front- Bench spokesperson, the people of Wales have endorsed the devolution settlement not once but twice, in 1997 and again in 2011, so they cannot use the UK Brexit referendum as an opportunity to overrule the decisions people made in Wales to have power devolved to their Assembly. There is still time for the UK Government to reach an agreement with the Welsh and Scottish Governments on the question of clause 11 and the devolution of powers post Brexit—both those Governments have indicated their desire to do so—but we are absolutely clear that UK-wide frameworks to deal with the post- Brexit scenario have to be arrived at on the basis of the consent of the devolved Assemblies, not simply consultation.

As has been noted, this debate was originally scheduled for St David’s day. In Scotland, St Andrew’s day is recognised as a public holiday, because the Scottish Government had the power to make that change. That is an anomaly in Wales that ought to be put right, both by introducing a public holiday and by giving the Welsh Assembly the power to make that determination.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stephen Doughty

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Patrick Grady]

I have already explained why reporting requirements are important and we heard the Minister’s response. The new clause asks for a report on how increasing the limit on Government assistance would help to achieve the sustainable development goals. It is worth putting on record why that is important. The sustainable development goals ought to be the overriding framework that explains in more detail what poverty reduction and international development look like in practice in the 21st century.

As I did on Second Reading, I pay tribute to the work of the previous Prime Minister in leading the process that drafted and achieved the agreement of the global sustainable development goals by every country at the United Nations. The emphasis now has to be on meeting those goals.

I received correspondence from the Secretary of State in response to my contribution on Second Reading and she emphasised the CDC is working towards some of the specific SDG goals: number 8 on employment, number 5 on gender empowerment, number 7 on energy access and number 13 on climate change. But the SDG framework is holistic and it is important to show how progress is being made across the board, and that progress in one area is not being traded off against progress in another.

As with the previous requirement to report on poverty reduction that we had hoped for, this proposed new clause would help prevent any risk of backsliding. It would clearly frame the work of the CDC in a global context that would shape the global development agenda through to 2030. Even if the Minister is not willing to accept the new clause, here or on Report, it would still be useful to hear assurances on how the totality of the sustainable development goals are to be reflected in the CDC’s work through the additional funding of this Bill.

[Stephen Doughty]

I want to make some brief comments. As with the previous new clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman, it is helpful to align more closely the CDC to the overarching frameworks that apply to DFID and our aid budget. DFID has been a leader in going out to fight for the global goals, and in working with other Government Departments. However, the global goals do not apply only to DFID; they apply to our domestic Departments. They bring up important issues of coherence and focus, as I touched on earlier. If we are using them to apply to other areas of DFID spending such as our bilateral programme, funding through other multilaterals, the ODA being spent by other Government Departments and domestic policy on climate change, there is no reason to expect that the CDC should do any less.

We have heard the idea of micromanaging CDC discussed a few times. When we look at the sectors it is investing in at the moment, there are clear inconsistencies. I know the Minister does not like me to bring up examples but I will because they are important and I want to understand why those inconsistencies arise. We could include a much clearer framework about poverty eradication around those 17 global goals that cover everything from hunger, health and wellbeing, the quality of education and affordable and—crucially—clean energy. It is slightly odd that the CDC seems to be investing in fossil fuels.

The goals also include sustainable cities and communities, climate action, peace, justice, strong institutions and partnerships. The crucial issue is, who is involved in development and taking decisions? Are these measures just done to people in developing countries by corporations or investors or do they involve people living in poverty or excluded in some way in decisions about their future? Those are admirable goals and should form a guiding framework for the work and spending of our aid money, whether that is by an NGO, DFID directly or the CDC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

What the Minister said at the end was disappointing, because, in fact, there is an opportunity for Africa and many parts of the developing world to leapfrog the technologies that have polluted our skies and buildings and all the rest of it over so many years. Surely, if the CDC’s investment is for anything, it should be in innovative, clean technologies. That is what we are trying to get to with the various amendments and new clauses we have been tabling, to make it clear in statute that this is its duty and not to allow it space to make excuses such as “Well, it’s difficult” and “We have to do this” and that jobs are more important than the longer-term viability of the planet. I am not convinced that is the case.

That is why we continue to seek assurances. Again, if we withdraw this new clause, we hope the Minister will reflect on the points made over the course of the debate in Committee. When the Bill comes back to the House on Report there might yet be ways in which it can be strengthened to take some of the points on board and reflect them going forward. On that basis, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prior bilateral programme

After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—

“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prior bilateral programme

(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.

(2) That condition is that any new investment in a country enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is in a country to which the Secretary of State provides assistance through a bilateral programme at the time.

(3) In this section—

“country” has the same meaning as in section 17 of the International Development Act 2002;

“the current limit at the time” means—

(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,

(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force;

“assistance” has the same meaning as in section 5 of the International Development Act 2002.””—(Stephen Doughty.)

This new clause would limit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) to countries where the United Kingdom maintains a bilateral programme at the time.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Islands

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to speak on this matter in Westminster Hall for the second time. The first was exactly a year ago, in the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), who sends his apologies that he cannot be here today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing the debate, on giving us a comprehensive introduction to the current situation and on replacing the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—I am sure some Labour Back Benchers wish that that was as easy in all circumstances as he appears to have found it.

This has been a comprehensive debate. To leave plenty of time for the Minister to respond, I will dwell briefly on just a few points: resettlement of the Chagos islanders as a human rights issue; the weakness of the various arguments that we have heard against resettlement; and a couple of broader questions about the sovereignty of the islands and their use as a US base.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said, the Scottish National party clearly stands for the principle of self-determination. It is great to hear so many Conservative Members standing up for that principle today, and I hope they will want to endorse it again if the Scottish Parliament considers another referendum Bill. We have stood in solidarity with the Chagossians for a long time; indeed, in 2004 my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said in this Chamber:

“The more we discover about the matter, the more disgraceful, underhand and thoroughly disreputable the long-term treatment of those few thousand people is shown to have been.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 277WH.]

That disgraceful treatment continues to this day, at the cost of the United Kingdom’s reputation as a defender of fundamental human rights. We remain guilty of double standards and hypocrisy; as was said earlier, if the eviction took place today, it would be considered a breach of fundamental human rights under international law.

In 2009, the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), who was then a shadow Foreign Office Minister, said in this Chamber:

“There is no doubt that there is a moral imperative.”

He mentioned

“what I suspect is the all-party view that the rights of the Chagossian people should be recognised, and that there should at the very least be a timetable for the return of those people at least to the outer islands”—[Official Report, 23 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 176WH.]

That was the Conservative position in 2009; it would be interesting to hear whether it still is, now that the Conservative party is in actually a position to do something about it.

We have heard a number of objections about the feasibility of resettlement, not least from the former Minister, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). I say to him with the greatest respect that there may well be logistical challenges to resettling people on the islands, but—as the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) said—this is about their right to return almost as much as it is about whether they do return. As for logistics, there is a US naval base, which I presume has electricity and running water, on the island. If it is possible for the United States Government to build such a sophisticated base of operations in such a remote location, surely it is possible for people to choose to make their own lives on the island in the way that their ancestors did for generations.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise for the fact that I could not be here for the start of the debate. Hon. Members will recall my position on the matter as the shadow Foreign Office Minister in the last debate: I am a strong supporter of righting this historical injustice. With respect to logistics, we have been able to move ahead with building an airport in St Helena, and we have done many other things in the overseas territories that have cost an awful lot and have been logistically difficult.

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely. I do not think any of this is beyond the wit of man. The point has been made several times that if the Government diverted some of the money they spend on litigating the issue towards helping the people they forcibly removed to resettle in their own homes in their ancestral territory, the infrastructure issues could be overcome.

I am excited to hear what the Minister has to say about the US position, given the differing views we have heard on what that might be, but perhaps we should flip our perspective. Perhaps we should think about not whether resettlement is a barrier to US activity, but whether US activity has to get in the way of resettlement. Those things ought to be able to co-exist, although perhaps there are questions about the US use of the area as well. The former Assistant Secretary of Defence under Ronald Reagan, Lawrence Korb, has said that there is “no good…reason” to oppose the Chagossians’ return. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, yachtists seem to visit the island pretty frequently, so there does not seem to be much of a security concern there.

Nor should conservation and the right to return be mutually exclusive. I imagine that people who want to live on remote islands want to live in harmony with nature, ensure that their lifestyles are as sustainable as possible and respect the sustainability of the environment, even if the marine protected area is on questionable legal ground—or in questionable waters.

There are general questions about the sovereignty of the islands. It is not just a question of the right to return. We are in a critical phase, with the roll-over of the 1966 agreement about to take place. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister believes that part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 applies. That Act places treaty ratification into statute and requires parliamentary scrutiny of it. We may be faced with the roll-over of a treaty, but surely the particular circumstances of the 20-year extension mean that it should be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament, and surely the Government have nothing to hide or to be concerned about. If the Minister cannot answer that question today, I hope he will do so in the not-too-distant future. In any event, not only Parliament but the Government of Mauritius must be included in any future dialogue.

Finally, there are issues relating to the use of the naval base, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun alluded to. It is important that we get assurances that the British Indian Ocean Territory has not been used for the illegal rendition or torture of detainees during the so-called war on terror. If it has, people should be brought to justice. We call on the Government to recognise that Diego Garcia is part of the internationally recognised African nuclear weapon-free zone and to give assurances that no nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction have ever been placed there. They must also give assurances that military installations on Diego Garcia have not been used to store cluster bombs, in violation of their treaty obligations under the convention on cluster munitions.

The SNP stands fully behind the right of the Chagos islanders to return home. As recently as 16 September, we heard that the Government want to keep the matter under review, but we need an answer at long last. As several hon. Members have noted, it is not clear what makes the Chagos situation so unique. Why are the Government so insistent on standing in the way of the right of return? Is it cost, is it security, or do they simply not want to admit that successive Governments have got it wrong? Britannia has not ruled the waves for some considerable time; the sooner the UK Government realise that, the better.

Foreign Aid Expenditure

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stephen Doughty

Monday 13th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

The point I am making is a wide one. It is right to look carefully into any allegations of such a serious nature—and several have been raised today. I listened to what the Minister said about specific cases, but that is not the point I am making. I am speaking generally, with reference to the impression created by The Mail on Sunday petition. The fact is that the countries that our aid supports have been regularly reviewed. The coalition Government made different choices about which countries to support from the Labour Government that I was part of; but that was right—we should review those things. We have stopped giving aid to India, and places such as China—it was a difficult decision but I think it was the right one—yet a myth is perpetuated that we are still giving them money.

As has been said, there is increased independent oversight from the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which, incidentally, reports to the International Development Committee, not the Government. That means there can be independent scrutiny of what our aid is being spent on . Things have also moved on in the sense that cross-Government co-operation has increased. I welcome the steps that have been taken to increase co-operation between defence, diplomatic and development activities, through the National Security Council. It is the right decision, and it ensures that we are co-ordinated across our international sphere. It is not a zero-sum game. I firmly support the 2% spending target for defence, but I also support the 0.7% aid target. I am in favour of supporting charities and those tackling poverty in my constituency, such as food banks, but I also support providing life-saving drugs to people dying from Ebola or HIV across the world. That is not a zero-sum game—we can do both. Indeed, if I want to ask why people in my constituency are living in poverty, I will have far more questions for the Government about some of their other policies than about what the international aid budget is being spent on.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the Government’s increasing tendency to double-count spending both to the 2% NATO target and the 0.7% GNI target?

[Stephen Doughty]

I think there is a danger of things sometimes being blurred, but there are activities that can legitimately be described as measures contributing to security and to development. It is not a zero-sum game. I saw that in Afghanistan. I saw the close working between our development staff, armed forces and Foreign Office staff—there is overlap, but we need to be cautious about completely skewing things in one or the other. As to proportions, the fact is that in 2014-15 defence spending was 75% of our total international spending. Aid, diplomacy and intelligence made up just 25%. That is a perfectly reasonable balance, and the co-operation that is going on is absolutely right.

The growing chaos in Yemen, parts of the horn of Africa, and north and central Africa, shows exactly the consequences of ignoring gross poverty and instability. Our aid is a tiny investment—less than a penny in the pound. It helps us to tackle threats. It is morally right and it shows us to be a compassionate and progressive global power. In my view it is madness to slash the budget that is focused on tackling those threats to our national and global security that drive people to flee their countries and drown, and that, most importantly, degrade us all.