International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

That is true. I too would have thought that it would have been in the Government’s best interests to make the information available. The money spent by British taxpayers through the EU is often spent on white elephant projects that are never completed. There are many examples of such projects throughout the world and the Government themselves have been concerned about that. It is crucial for the public to have a fair idea of how all that taxpayers’ money has been spent, not just a narrow proportion of it. A considerable amount of money is now spent on European Union and other multilateral aid. I hope that my hon. Friend will press amendment No. 8, because many members of the public would be very interested to know how the money is spent and where it is being wasted. They might also realise what a washed-up organisation the European Union is and recognise that we should be spending much less on it generally, not just for international aid purposes. Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 are some of the weaker amendments that my hon. Friend has tabled, and to which I have added my name. I think that they too are probing amendments, intended to establish the extent to which we should report what is going on. Perhaps we should concentrate on the priorities. Increasing the number of countries covered might not be of great advantage, but at least it would produce more transparency. After all, the Bill is all about reporting and transparency, and extending the number of countries included in the report would provide the transparency that I am sure we all want. My hon. Friend made some important points in the amendments, but I am not sure that they are the most important amendments that he has tabled.