IT seems to me that our departure from the gold standard of giving 0.7 per cent of GDP in aid is avoidable.

First, we can legitimately boost the total figure for foreign aid by including government expenditure on foreigners in this country. This would bring in spending to support asylum seekers, on furlough for foreign workers, on NHS treatment for foreign patients and on imprisoning foreign criminals.

This would also impress upon those who wish to see aid actually going overseas the need to keep such expenses to a minimum. They must recognise that money spent on housing refugees in Middlesbrough is taken from the same pot as for helping those encamped in Lebanon.

Secondly, we can address the unpopularity of spending on aid by ditching the high-minded notion that British aid should not be tied to British exports. Ultimately, all that any recipient nation can do with donated foreign currency is to buy foreign goods and services. If they have a preference for the goods or services of some other country, then they can either pay for these themselves or ask the chosen supplier to donate them.

Where we wish to support organisations working in-country, with staff wages to pay, we would provide them with goods which they can sell to raise local currency. Our aid money would go into contracts with British companies or individuals. Aid would then form a natural part of any package for economic stimulation.

John Riseley, Harrogate.