logo
Philip Hammond has made millions from 30 roles while member of Lords

Philip Hammond has made millions from 30 roles while member of Lords

The Guardian10-03-2025
The former chancellor Philip Hammond has made millions from 30 directorships and consultancy jobs while being a member of the House of Lords.
He has worked for Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait, regimes widely criticised for their human rights records. He has also been hired by a string of diverse commercial enterprises such as investment companies, technology businesses and tax advisers.
He has received millions of pounds through these jobs, although the overall total is not known.
The Tory started picking up clients in 2020 when he became a peer. That year Lord Hammond set up his own consultancy, Matrix Partners, which has generated pre-tax profits of at least £3m since it was established, official records show. He has been paid more than £800,000 by the three Middle Eastern governments alone.
Before becoming a lord, Hammond was successively the defence secretary, the foreign secretary and the chancellor between 2011 and 2019, and in some cases he had met individuals connected to his current posts while in the government, according to official documents.
One of his post-government jobs was advising the Japanese bank Nomura. While he was chancellor, he formally met Nomura's senior executives at the British ambassador's Tokyo residence in 2019 to discuss official business.
The Guardian's Lords debate project has raised questions about the appropriateness of peers acting as consultants while also voting on government legislation.
The House of Commons rules were tightened last year after a series of scandals, and MPs are banned from taking on any form of consultancy that involves providing political advice. But House of Lords rules do allow peers to take consultancy roles. Democracy campaigners argue that at the very least this risks a perception that peers can benefit from their position.
Hammond, 69, said: 'I have a diverse portfolio of outside interests, none of which is related to my membership of the House of Lords.'
He said the Lords had rigorous rules to prevent potential abuses. He added: 'All my roles are fully compliant with both the letter and the spirit of the Lords' rules and guidance, and I have engaged extensively with the Lords' authorities over the years to ensure that each new role is fully compliant.'
Before he became an MP in 1997, Hammond was involved in businesses including property development, and was often described as one of the richest MPs in the Commons.
In the five years since entering the Lords, Hammond has voted regularly but spoken only three times. The last time he spoke was in August 2021.
During that time he has been rebuked by a Whitehall watchdog for contacting a senior civil servant on behalf of a bank he was paid to advise, as his actions were judged to be 'not acceptable'.
The watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), ruled in 2021 that it had been an 'unwise step' for Hammond to have contacted a senior Treasury official about a project developed by OakNorth bank.
Hammond said he had acted correctly as the bank was offering to help the UK government for free during the Covid crisis, and therefore would not have obtained any financial benefit.
Hammond is the chair of a crypto startup, Copper Technologies, in which he has a small shareholding that at one point was notionally valued at £15m. Whitehall documents show Hammond was involved in setting up a meeting between Copper's chief executive and a Treasury minister in 2021.
Hammond told the Financial Times that his actions did not amount to lobbying as he did not facilitate Copper's meeting with the minister.
The House of Lords rules require peers to declare all roles they hold, to avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. However, they do not have to state how much they are paid for this work.
There is one exception to this rule: peers are required to declare how much they are paid if receiving money from foreign governments.
As a result, Hammond has declared payments of £503,000 from the Saudi Arabian government for advising on economic issues. He had regular contact with Saudi ministers while in government.
He was paid £288,000 by Bahrain's ruling regime for advising on fiscal issues, and the Kuwait Investment Office, which handles the country's government-owned investments, has paid him £31,250.
Other clients have included the insurance company Mitsui Sumitomo, the specialist tax advisers RCK Partners, and Arora, a hotel and property business. Some of his advisory posts are unpaid but he holds shares in the companies.
As well as Copper Technologies, the former chancellor is chair of three other businesses: Innovo, a property company that operates in the UK, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, among other countries; the fintech company Embedded Finance; and Municipal Partners, a non-profit that provides affordable housing.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Blue Bottle Coffee now has a standalone café outlet in Singapore at Paragon
Blue Bottle Coffee now has a standalone café outlet in Singapore at Paragon

Time Out

time40 minutes ago

  • Time Out

Blue Bottle Coffee now has a standalone café outlet in Singapore at Paragon

It seems like Blue Bottle Coffee is here to stay in Singapore. The world-renowned specialty coffee chain first landed on our shores last August, opening as a gift shop in the Japanese retail store Lumine Singapore at Raffles City. About seven months later, the space was converted into a full-fledged 42-seater dine-in café, much to the delight of coffee lovers and fans of the brand. Thanks to its soaring popularity, Blue Bottle now has a second outlet at Paragon Shopping Centre – its first standalone store in Singapore. That's not all. The brand also has plans to expand and open at least 10 more cafés across the island by 2027, making its artisanal coffee accessible to more Singaporeans. For now, the latest Blue Bottle café in Orchard seats 70 customers across its indoor and alfresco dining areas, which combined, span a total of more than 980 square feet. The space is decked out in the same iconic minimalist design as other Blue Bottle outlets, with simple yet classy elements of stainless steel, oak wood and terra cotta-toned plaster. Here, you'll find the regular range of espresso-based beverages, cold brew and pour-over selections on the menu. And on top of coffee, there are two exclusive food items on the Paragon menu – the Liège Waffle ($8.50) and yoghurt bowl ($12) topped with granola and strawberries. Those who want to get their hands on Blue Bottle drip (no, not the coffee) can also purchase merchandise like the embroidered Blue Bottle tote ($50), designed in collaboration with Japanese bag brand Ball & Chain and exclusively sold at the Paragon outlet. This new café is the result of Blue Bottle's partnership with Malaysian lifestyle specialist Valiram, and the two will be working together to roll out some 10 more outlets over the next two years. In the meantime, you can visit Blue Bottle Coffee's second outlet at 290 Orchard Road, Paragon Shopping Centre, #01-37, Singapore 238859, from 8am to 9pm daily.

It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland

The National

timean hour ago

  • The National

It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland

The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.

Zero-hours contracts: peers accused of ‘trying to block stronger UK workers' rights'
Zero-hours contracts: peers accused of ‘trying to block stronger UK workers' rights'

The Guardian

time3 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Zero-hours contracts: peers accused of ‘trying to block stronger UK workers' rights'

Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers have been accused of trying to block stronger rights for millions of workers amid a growing campaign by business leaders to water down Labour's zero-hours contract plans. In a blow for the government, the Lords last week voted to curtail the manifesto promise to give workers a right to a guaranteed hours contract and day-one protections against unfair dismissal. Setting up a showdown with the upper chamber, the Lords passed a series of amendments to the employment rights bill that will must be addressed by ministers when MPs return from their summer break. In an angry intervention on Monday, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, Paul Nowak, said the Lords was 'doing the bidding of bad bosses' and ought to 'get out of the way' of the plans. 'The sight of hereditary peers voting to block stronger workers' rights belongs in another century. It's plain wrong,' he said. Under the Lords' amendments, a requirement for employers to offer zero-hours workers a contract covering a guaranteed number of hours would be shifted to place the onus on staff to ask for such an arrangement. Protections against unfair dismissal from the first day of employment – which the government plans to reduce from the current level of two years – would be extended to six months, and changes to free up trade unions would be curtailed. The bill will return to the Commons in September for MPs to consider the amendments. The two houses then continue to vote on the changes in a process known as 'ping-pong' until a way forward is agreed. The amendments were put forward by the Lib Dem Lord Goddard, a former leader of Stockport council, and two Tory peers: Lord Hunt, who is a shadow business minister, and Lord Sharpe, a former investment banker. Hunt did not respond to a request for comment. Sharpe said: 'Keir Starmer's unemployment bill is a disaster for employees as much as it is a threat to business. Labour politicians who have never worked in business are destroying the economy. Only the Conservatives are listening to business and making the case for growth.' Goddard said he feared Labour's 'rushed bill' would be bad for workers in small businesses and on family-owned farms. 'They were badly let down by the Conservatives, and Labour seems to have a blind spot when it comes to farms and small businesses, too. 'We support the bill as a whole and have worked constructively to try to improve it. It's a shame to see the government getting upset that we didn't simply give them a blank cheque.' Employers groups welcomed the changes, saying the Lords was responding to business concerns. Helen Dickinson, the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, said: 'Putting forward positive, practical and pragmatic amendments to the employment rights bill [will] help to protect the availability of valuable, local, part-time and entry level jobs up and down the country.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Industry chiefs have stepped up lobbying against the workers' rights changes, warning that companies were already slashing jobs and putting up prices in response to tax rises in chancellor Rachel Reeves's autumn budget. Dickinson said there was 'further to go' to curb the employment rights bill. 'Even with these amendments accepted, retailers remain worried about the consequences for jobs from other areas of the bill.' Union leaders have, though, urged ministers to stand firm. A recent mega poll of 21,000 people commissioned by the TUC found a majority of UK voters – including Conservative, Lib Dem and Reform UK supporters – backed a ban on zero-hours contracts. Nowak said the government plan included 'commonsense protections' that a majority of people wanted to see become law. 'These peers are not just out of touch, they are actively defying their own voters – and the public at large. The government must stand firm in the face of cynical attacks and deliver the employment rights bill in full.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store