Andy Hood (Hansard, 12 June 2002)

§ The Earl of Northesk
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they endorse the move of Andy Hood, special adviser at the Ministry of Defence, from that post to join a PR company; and whether such a move is consistent with the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
My Lords, Mr Hood made an application to join Brunswick Group under 263 the normal procedures. His application was considered in the normal way by MoD officials and a decision was made that no condition should be imposed upon Mr Hood taking up this appointment. All that is entirely in line with procedures applicable to special advisers.
These procedures, set out in the Civil Service management code, allow for applications from special advisers to be dealt with in that way.

§ The Earl of Northesk
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may make clear at the outset that my concern is not with Mr Hood per se but with the underlying principle that has seen a steady stream of government advisers find alternative employment in the private sector.
Regardless of whether or not there is a conflict of interest in this case, do not the Government realise how that sort of action plays with public perception? Does the Minister accept that if it is appropriate for Ministers of the Crown to be subject to a period of purdah before taking up outside appointments, it is just as appropriate for special advisers? Would not that ensure that the prized impartiality of the Civil Service is not only upheld but is also being seen to be upheld?

§ Lord Bach
My Lords, there is no issue of principle here. The time of the House is being wasted, and I shall tell the House why. This application was approved without condition. Mr Hood had no dealings with his prospective employer when he was a special adviser and had no routine dealings with commercially sensitive information about any company. The noble Earl is wrong when he says that there must be a gap for senior civil servants. Everything depends on what job the senior civil servant is doing and to what job he or she may or may not be moving. The same applies to special advisers, as it did in this case. I really must invite the noble Earl not always to believe everything he hears on the radio.

§ Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I understand that that was cleared by MoD officials. But there is obviously great sensitivity about special advisers. I, indeed, employed a special adviser who himself subsequently moved to a lobbying company. Special arrangements were made and the move was carefully considered before he went. That needs to be done. But I trust that it was considered centrally as well. Was it done through the Cabinet Office and the Cabinet Secretary, or was it, as I understand, done through the committee that approves appointments of people moving from the Civil Service into the private sector?
Clearly, there needs to be a common approach, because otherwise, exactly the point made by my noble friend is valid. There will be suspicion and concern that the gentleman concerned will have knowledge that in 264 certain circumstances will be valuable to a private-sector company. It is most important that the Government protect the integrity of the public service from that position.

§ Lord Bach
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reasonable approach. Of course he is right that these things should be done properly. Our case is that in this case they were done absolutely properly.
If I may, I shall take a little time to explain what happened. When Mr Hood received an offer of employment from Brunswick, he followed the established business appointment procedures and provided the MoD with full details of his proposed future employment. MoD officials consulted Cabinet Office officials on the procedures that should apply in handling his application. The Cabinet Office advised that, in accordance with the Civil Service management code, it needed to be consulted only if the MoD judged that Mr Hood had had official dealings with his prospective employer at any time during his period of Crown service and there appeared to be a risk of criticism. MoD officials were satisfied on those grounds that the application did not need to be referred to the Cabinet Office. The decision on Mr Hood's application was therefore taken by MoD officials with the approval of the Permanent Secretary.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, as I served for eight years on the committee on appointments of retired public servants the committee referred to by my noble friend Lord King and we prescribed periods of quarantine for a number of distinguished persons who were leaving public service, may I ask whether this case has been referred to that committee or an equivalent body?

§ Lord Bach
My Lords, I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question, but of course I shall find out and let him know. Had Mr Hood had close involvement with defence companies while he was in the MoD and had his position at Brunswick involved work with clients, which it does not, the management code might have imposed a condition. But, as I said, that did not apply in this case.

§ Lord Roper
My Lords, while accepting what the Minister said about this particular case, is there not concern that special advisers, because of their contacts with Ministers and their access to high-level policy decisions, ought perhaps to be treated in the same way as senior civil servants? Does the Minister accept that we have pressed for some time from these Benches for consultation and the preparation of a Civil Service Act, so that those matters can be clarified?

§ Lord Bach
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Government are certainly committed to Civil Service legislation. Indeed, I agree with what he says about the way in which both special advisers and senior civil servants should be treated.

§ Lord Blaker
My Lords, given the useful and informative exchange of questions and answers that 265 we have had, will the Minister now consider withdrawing his remark that my noble friend Lord Northesk was wasting the House's time?

§ Lord Bach
My Lords, the noble Lord puts it so gracefully that of course I will.

§ Lord Saatchi
My Lords, I am so glad that the Minister has taken back that remark, because it was going to prevent me thanking the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House sincerely for allowing this Private Notice Question.
Is the Minister aware that at the end of an excellent debate in your Lordships' House on 1st May, his colleague, the Cabinet Office Minister, gave many noble Lords the impression that the Government had lost their appetite for a Civil Service Act? I think that that was partly because the debate coincided with the publication of an interview with the Cabinet Secretary in which he expressed in print his view that there was no need for such an Act as we have managed perfectly well without one for hundreds of years.
I again ask the Minister, on the lines of the question asked by my noble friend Lord Roper, to confirm that the Government intend to introduce a Civil Service Bill in this Parliament to deal with matters such as this. Will he tell us what is the status of the consultation on that Bill and what is the timetable for its introduction?

§ Lord Bach
My Lords, to some extent, I repeat, the Government are committed to legislation for the Civil Service and plan to consult fully in advance of its introduction. It is important, as the noble Lord made clear in his question, but no government would commit themselves firmly to a detailed timetable in respect of their future legislative programme. I do not think that the noble Lord expected any other answer.