A WATCHDOG has rebuked former chancellor Philip Hammond for using his government connections to assist a bank he now advises.
Lord Pickles, who chairs the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), said it was an “unwise step” for the Conservative politician to contact a senior Treasury official about a project developed by OakNorth.
Lord Hammond of Runnymede argued he emailed Charles Roxburgh, the second permanent secretary at the Treasury, in a bid to establish that senior officials in the department were aware the bank was offering free support to aid the “Covid pandemic national response”.
But Pickles (below) said Hammond’s use of his contacts in government in this way “was not acceptable”.
In a letter to Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove, Pickles said: “I do not consider it was in keeping with the letter or the spirit of the Government’s rules for the former chancellor to contact HMT on behalf of a bank which pays for his advice.”
Former ministers must apply for advice from Acoba when they take up any new paid or unpaid appointment outside of government within two years of leaving ministerial office.
Included among the reasons for the rules is to avoid the risk of an ex-minister “improperly exploiting privileged access to contacts in government”.
OakNorth had developed a “toolkit” which had assisted partner banks in making lending and refinancing decisions.
In a letter to Pickles, he added: “I am, of course, aware that the terms of the advice I received from Acoba would have prohibited me from making such a communication on OakNorth’s behalf if the purpose had been to benefit the bank or to ‘secure business on behalf of OakNorth or its partners/clients’. But it was not.
READ MORE: Lord Pickles may lack bite, but we must heed his barking
“The purpose was to establish that a pro bono offer of support to HMG (Her Majesty’s Government), to assist in the Treasury’s response to business impacts of the Covid pandemic, had been received at senior level.”
Hammond said Roxburgh confirmed they were aware of the proposal and officials intended to discuss the offer with Chancellor Rishi Sunak.
He went on to argue he did not believe seeking confirmation of the receipt of the offer “can be defined as ‘lobbying’ in any reasonably understood interpretation of the word”, noting: “If the subject matter had been a commercial proposal by OakNorth to HMG, I would certainly not have offered to make contact with Charles Roxburgh, as to do so would have been a clear breach of the Acoba advice.”
Pickles acknowledged the bank’s initial approach to the Treasury was arranged without Lord Hammond’s involvement and repeated what the former chancellor had done.
He added: “You said this contact was ‘...neither seeking to influence policy, nor motivated by an attempt to secure business (or any other form of benefit)’.
“I have no doubt you sincerely believed contact with your former department in this way was appropriate and within the rules.
“Unfortunately, even though the initial contact was made without your involvement, it was an unwise step to contact senior officials at the Treasury on OakNorth’s behalf.”
Pickles said the rules and conditions include seeking to prevent any reasonable suggestion that a former minister’s employer may be offered “unfair access or influence within the government as a result of their former role”.
He went on: “In this case, as the former chancellor paid by OakNorth, your contact with HMT raises a reasonable concern that direct engagement with the second permanent secretary at HMT was only made available to OakNorth as a direct result of your time as chancellor.
“The committee considers the use of your contacts in government in this way was not consistent with the intention of the rules and was not acceptable.”
In response, Hammond said he understood Acoba is “under a lot of pressure to demonstrate that it is not ‘toothless’”, and that: “The clear conclusion of your own analysis is that no breach of the conditions occurred.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel