My Lords, I rise with great pleasure, following the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to agree with everything that all of them said. I am going to be quite brief but I have three points to make. I will speak chiefly to Amendment 177, to which I have attached my name—as have the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Hendy—but I also want to comment on a couple of other amendments in this group.
I join others in welcoming the Minister to her new post. Is it not good to have some certainty in politics? At least we have the certainty that the Procurement Bill will come round again, whatever else we might be doing or facing in other parts of the Westminster system.
There is a phrase about the certainty of death and taxes, except of course we know that taxes are not a certainty for many of the companies now operating in the UK or collecting many government contracts. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, referred to
one of those companies in particular—a company that I describe as the great parasite. It does not pay its workers very well, which relates to another amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—we will get to that later—and it pays little or no tax in the UK.
There is a specific point to be made here. I am sure the Government would say that they want to see government and official money being spent well. However, the Tax Justice Network has noted, in looking at definitions of tax havens, that another term for them is secrecy jurisdictions. When companies operate out of tax havens, it is extremely difficult to see what is happening with their money and how they are operating; of course, they are not paying for the facilities and services they need to run their business and make their profits. In thinking about the great parasite, the example I often give when talking to schools, colleges and community groups is this: “Imagine the road outside. Think of all the lorries that have been carrying Amazon parcels up and down it today. Who is paying for that road? All of us in this room are, but Amazon is not”. If the Government are concerned about value for money and transparency in government procurement, Amendment 177 and the associated Amendment 180 are absolutely essential additions to this Bill.
4.15 pm
I also want to pick up on the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about competition. It is interesting that this issue is coming up more and more in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, it was just raised in the Chamber by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in an Oral Question on food security in which she raised concerns around the lack of competition among the giant agrochemical companies that entirely dominate the global food system. I note that, as some Members may already be aware, a “Panorama” programme is being prepared on that very subject. The Financial Times also recently covered the issue in some detail in terms of concerns about hedge funds and the cross-ownership of major companies that dominate huge parts of the market in such crucial areas as food security.
Of course, in thinking about this Bill, procurement is something I have been banging on about in your Lordships’ House since my first Written Question. Procurement for our public services, particularly of food, is a crucial way in which we can guarantee both public health and local prosperity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the point, as would I, about tax havens. In our earlier debates several months ago—those we can remember—we talked about the importance of promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, very few of which have 17 subsidiaries based in tax havens. Generally speaking, their operate transparently and are based in the UK, with all their tax, business and funds circulating in the UK and with them paying their taxes. As I said in our previous debate, if we are to support small and medium-sized enterprises we need to ensure that their often relatively simple, fair, transparent, straightforward arrangements do not disadvantage them when they are lined up against giant multinational corporations.
I will make one final point. These amendments—I will not go through them all—relate to money laundering, bribery, et cetera. I do not think that many Members of this Committee were in this Room a couple of weeks ago when my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb secured a Question for Short Debate on corruption. I know that I often struggle to get the Government to listen to me in promoting issues around addressing corruption—although we have seen quite a change in tone since the first financial services Bill, whose passage I took part in nearly three years ago—but I ask the Minister and the Government to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, who chairs the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In the corruption debate secured by my noble friend, he said that he was speaking in his personal capacity, but I ask the Minister and the Government to listen to his words:
“The trouble with corruption is that it is an insidious threat … once it has taken root it is extremely difficult to get rid of. We would therefore be wise to take steps to head off any further deterioration … we have … turned a blind eye to the perpetrators of corruption”—[Official Report, 13/10/22; col. GC 156.]
using London as a base.
These amendments are absolutely crucial. Whether they are strong enough, I am not quite sure, but I urge the Government to listen to the words of the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.