Conservative MP refers himself to watchdog over adviser role
Former minister George Freeman submitted queries to Labour ministers about the sector the firm operates in, The Times reported.
The newspaper published what it said were leaked emails that showed exchanges in which Mr Freeman had asked the company's director what to ask about as he prepared written parliamentary questions related to space data and emissions tracking.
He reportedly tabled the questions, which are a way for MPs to ask for more information on the policies and activities of government departments, to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
He became a paid adviser with GHGSat, a monitoring service for greenhouse gas emissions, in April last year.
The appointments watchdog Acoba advised him that in taking up the role, 'there are risks associated with your influence and network of contacts gained whilst in ministerial office'.
'In particular, this is a company that is interested in government policy and decisions relating to the civil space sector and emissions.
'You noted you have made it clear to the company that you will not lobby government on its behalf, and this will not form part of your role.'
Mr Freeman told the Times: 'As a longstanding advocate of important new technologies, companies and industries, working cross-party through APPGs (All-Party Parliamentary Groups) and the select committee, I regularly ask experts for clarification on technical points and terminology, and deeply respect and try to assiduously follow the code of conduct for MPs and the need to act always in the public interest.
'Throughout my 15 years in parliament (and government), I have always understood the need to be transparent in the work I have done for and with commercial clients and charities and am always willing to answer any criticism.
'I don't believe I have done anything wrong but I am immediately referring myself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will accept his judgment in due course.'
Mr Freeman and GHGSat have been contacted for comment.
A Conservative Party spokesperson said: 'George Freeman MP has referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.
'It would be inappropriate for the Conservative Party to comment further whilst the Commissioner's inquiries are ongoing.'
The Lib Dems called for Tory leader Kemi Badenoch to suspend him.
Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader Daisy Cooper MP said: 'This looks like the same old sleaze and scandal people have come to expect from the Conservative Party.
'Kemi Badenoch should immediately suspend the whip from George Freeman while this is investigated.
'Failure to act would confirm that even after being booted out of government, the Conservatives are still hopelessly out of touch.'
The MP for Mid Norfolk is currently on the science, innovation and technology committee and a trade envoy.
He was responsible for the UK space agency in his previous role as a minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology under Rishi Sunak.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Minister quizzed on PIP welfare U-turn - 'How on earth did it get to this point'
In a dramatic climbdown on Thursday, Keir Starmer agreed to protect all existing claimants from losing Personal Independence Payments. But he still faces a major rebellion A government minister has been quizzed on Keir Starmer's U-turn on cuts to disability benefits after a bruising week for the Prime Minister. Skills Minister Baroness Jacqui Smith was pressed after the government was forced last week to introduce major concessions to avoid a humiliating Commons defeat. In a dramatic climbdown on Thursday, the PM agreed to protect all existing claimants from losing Personal Independence Payments. The changes to PIP will now only apply to new claims from November 2026. But Mr Starmer is still facing a rebellion at tomorrow's crunch vote, with as many as 50-60 Labour MPs still said to be considering voting against the government. It would be the biggest revolt of Mr Starmer's premiership so far. Appearing on BBC Breakfast, Baroness Smith was told: "It's quite a bruising week for the government. Looking at it now, how on earth did it get to this point?" The ex-Home Secretary replied: "What I think is important is what we're going to be starting tomorrow is really important reform of a broken welfare system. "Welfare reform is always difficult and I think actually the engagement that;s happened with Labour MPs, who are rightly bringing the concerns of their constituents about how this reform is going to work, have made this legislation better." Baroness Smith also said she hoped that Labour MPs will "feel able to support" the government at tomorrow's crunch vote after the concessions announced last week. The minister also suggested it was not "constructive" to discuss potential punishments for MPs who may decide to rebel against Mr Starmer's welfare plans. Asked on Sky News what the consequences should be for Labour MPs who vote against the government on the matter, she said: "I don't think talking about punishments, even as a former chief whip, is the constructive way forward here." She later added: "It's always the case in legislation that you introduce the Bill, you have a second reading on the principles, and then you think about the details as you take that through all of its stages in Parliament. I'm sure that that will continue to happen." But speaking on Monday the Labour MP Clive Efford said he still will not support the welfare bill even after the Government made concessions. He told the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4: "I think there are a lot of people waiting to hear what the Government is saying today who may be inclined to accept what the Government has done. READ MORE: MPs on fence ahead of crunch welfare vote as 'costs facing disabled people soar' "For me the situation hasn't changed for those people who will be adversely affected and until we know and understand the impact on them, we shouldn't be taking what I think is a leap in the dark." He added: "There are choices that the Government can make here; there are other places it can go to identify the resources. What we want to see, and fully support, is measures the Government is putting in the palace to assist people to move into work, the right to try, we support, but we can't guarantee the savings. "When you're asking for £3.5 billion regardless of the impact of those changes that can only adversely affect people who are in the benefit system. We cannot make assumptions about how much we can save in the welfare system ahead of actually bringing in those changes and seeing how they work." Plans for a major review of PIP will also be set out today, which will be co-produced by disabled people, organisations who represent them and MPs. It is hoped that the terms of the review - which will place disabled people at the heart of it - will persuade nervous MPs that the legislation is now heading in the right direction.
North Wales Live
an hour ago
- North Wales Live
Labour: A party on the edge in Wales amid anger at Drakeford, Morgan and Starmer
Certain realities about the Labour Party in Wales are undeniable. Having held power for an extended period, it still enjoys considerable support. However, beneath the "Welsh Labour" banner lies a diverse group, not a uniform entity. In Wales, the party is led by an individual who wasn't the preferred candidate among many of its elected representatives and didn't secure a victory in a member ballot. Meanwhile, at the UK level, the party's leader, although successful in a leadership contest, is experiencing plummeting popularity. These factors are crucial, as the party is bracing itself for a challenging year, facing opposition from two main fronts: the emerging populist appeal of Reform and the long-standing challenge posed by Plaid Cymru. Despite its rich history, substantial resources, loyal supporters, and established traditions, Labour is heading into the Senedd elections in May next year with trepidation. It is confronting the possibility of two unprecedented setbacks: its first loss in a Welsh election in over a century and the formation of the first Welsh Government since devolution began in 1999, in which Labour is not the leading party, reports Wales Online. There are many causes for concern nagging at and dividing party members, politicians and leaders. Among the most divisive are the recriminations over how and why the party was instrumental in bringing in a new electoral system that some believe will cost it the inbuilt advantage which it has enjoyed through first-past-the-post elections for generations. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here Mark Drakeford personally comes in for a lot of the criticism. He is the one who pushed through, alongside Plaid Cymru, the new electoral system for choosing the 96 members of the expanded Senedd. At first, the new system was seen by political pundits as having been a stitch up by the two parties which would shut out smaller parties and independents through a complex list system in which Wales would be divided up into 16 super constituencies, from each of which six Senedd Members would be chosen through a system of proportional representation. Yet the rise of Reform has left that political calculation looking far less certain. If Reform repeats the success it saw in last year's Westminster election - in which it came second in 13 constituencies, third in nine and fourth in four - it would be uniquely poised to benefit from an election in which there could theoretically be no advantage from actually having the most votes in a constituency if the numbers are tight. Devolved Wales has always had some proportional representation through the 20 regional Senedd Members, alongside the 40 directly-elected ones. But now all 96 will be chosen by PR. Thanks to the geographic spread of its support, Reform could pick up one or two Senedd Members in all of the super constituencies in Wales. "Thankyou very f***ing much Mark Drakeford" I remember being told long before the polls started showing just how bad it could get for Labour. There is a widely held belief that this has been his pet project, something he believed to be right so insisted on delivering before he retires from front line politics. But, Labour is a strange, unforgiving beast. Rivalries from decades ago between different Cardiff branches are not forgotten and he is criticised for listening to his Cardiff West group and long-term allies rather than taking the electoral pulse of other parts of the party, lay members or even voters. The theory is this is something he has long wanted and has delivered, so no matter what the collateral damage he is stubbornly wedded to this model whatever the implications. He is accused of defiantly pursuing reform "intent on losing us the next election" because he listens to few outside his local circle. However, all the dredging up rows and bad blood from decades ago, masks a reality that the new electoral system might be the thing that actually saves Labour from total annihilation. First-past-the post won't help a party if it isn't the biggest party in a seat, and the latest polls suggest there may not be many seats in Wales where Labour can be certain of that any more. A huge MRP poll by YouGov last week gave us an indication how Labour would fare in a straight first past the post election, and it wasn't good with almost all the red wiped off Wales' electoral map. Of the 32 constituencies polled, Labour is projected to get four seats. Suddenly that 18% in the new Senedd looks an awful lot better than that 12.5%. This weekend, in a warm and muggy Llandudno party members did their usual, booking out the hotel rooms, going to a disco led by the First Minister, and then a gala dinner after a long day of being moved to empty seats to clap at speeches so the camera picks up a full and enthusiastic room. But you'd be lucky outside that room if you knew that because someone had decided to curtail media access to the top politicians more than I have ever seen at a party conference before. Yes, it fell at a terrible time with Keir Starmer in the spotlight over his U-turn on reform of Personal Independence Payments (Pip) and facing criticism from many in his own party in Wales over how his handling of the situation. But surely the party would want people to know the Prime Minister had been there? A few reasons were given to me as to why any of the usual things didn't happen. There was extra limited access to the traditional visit the day before, no media huddle to ask questions, no one-on-ones. Not even the attempt to get the party's usual favoured choice of an opinion piece on our website or paper. Different reasons were given to me as to why that happened - Welsh Labour told Number 10 to steer clear and others wondered if the heightened security was signs of something going behind the scenes - but it was, as a side note, galling given it wasn't long since Keir Starmer invited members of the regional press to Downing Street to explain how important their role is and how much he values our audience. My own theory? They didn't want more questions about division, so let's get in, get out, and tick the box of having visited Wales. "Mad" is how one comms professional responded when I explained the above. Keir Starmer came and ticked a box, but delivering a short, anti-climatic speech which was short of substance and didn't really offer much to the electoral battle Labour faces. The line from his team about a "backroom stitch up between the Tories, Reform and Plaid" didn't go down well with his colleagues, let alone the opposition. Granted, there is a small cross-section of people who attend a party conference, clearly you're a big fan, a big fan with the time, resources, inclination and money to attend. But in some ways, it's the most telling way to gauge the mood, because if you're one of these uber fans and you're not happy, then there is a real problem. The dynamics were variously described to me as being "end of days" and "awful" and some of that is inevitable because there are wider, worldwide factors at play which will impact the result here. Populist parties are doing well, traditional parties are getting a kicking and the news agenda is dominated by things that are out of the control of anyone but Eluned Morgan personally is in for flak too. She is cheerleading to the best of her ability, but she is not the leader her colleagues wanted, and she is described as "chaotic" and taking a scattergun approach to policy. Having surrounded herself with communications advisors, there is a real dearth of policy or substance, it was repeatedly put to me - but there are lots of glossy videos. Each time she announces a new big idea, there are cabinet members and civil servants having to rejig to deliver it. The latest of those is that this weekend she announced a new government department for AI, and how much money is dedicated to creating this "world leading AI growth zone"? Just £2.5m. There is real disbelief the party has failed to get its election candidates in place, or even a plan to appoint them. There is real worry and uncertainty about what the election result will be in May. Relations between MPs and MSs are never entirely hunky dory but Eluned Morgan's Norwegian Church speech where she said the UK Government had not done "enough" and "we need to see more from them" really angered the Parliamentary Labour Party, as did a call where she reportedly accused Welsh Labour MPs in Westminster of not standing up for Wales. And while a lot of photos are being released showing they are truly BFFs, there are questions about just how much the Welsh secretary and First Minister agree on. When she took to the conference stage, she whipped out a Welsh flag showing she's different to London. She emphasised that message with her choice of clothes at an evening conference event, wearing a red jacket and T shirt promising 'the red Welsh way'. MPs who went in expecting the change Labour had promised are bruised - it has been far from the first year they expected. While their Senedd colleagues are still recovering from an utterly bruising spell with egos out of place, anger, upset, factions and - as one said - "bodies still all over the floor". Eluned Morgan's choice to hammer home this message of "I will do what's right for Wales" (even if that means calling out UK Government) is galling to MPs there who say actually, Welsh Labour has made a mess of health and education over the last 26 years on its own, and now they have been given a huge chunk of change, they are the ones who need to do the right thing with it. And you cannot escape the fact succinctly put to me that "There's an irony that we invented the system that will oust us." If Labour is in a position to form a government, even as a minority partner, the locker of experience has been depleted because big players will have gone. The decades of experience of Mark Drakeford, Julie James, Julie Morgan, Rebecca Evans and Jane Hutt to name just five will no longer be there. But this changing of the guard also sees some of the most tribal soldiers leaving. Eluned Morgan is criticised for surrounding herself with too many people tasked with "communications" and too few with actual policy. New projects and policies are announced on the hoof with no thought about how it will be delivered or will play out outside her core team. And the party itself is not blameless. While other parties are flying through their candidate selections, Labour - which let us not forget started this whole reform idea - has thus far failed to agree on the rules by which candidates will be chosen let alone chosen its candidates. That means they still do not have a full list of the 96 candidates required under the new system, ranked in the order of which they will appear on the ballot paper. There is no date for when that will happen either, so while incumbent Senedd members have been chosen, the new blood of prospective candidates believe it will be October or November before they know. What does that do? Well it keeps them on their toes. If you're someone trying to secure selection and get the number one slot to maximise your election chances, then having to be on your best behaviour for longer, showing the party's upper echelons you're a good loyal servant works for them. That's a lot more leaflets you'll deliver. But it doesn't work for you if you're trying to out-compete a constituency colleague, building resentment at the number of events they post X status' from, who you may well end up on the list next to and (potentially) sat next to in the Senedd. It's a mad election strategy because normally, parties want the longest built-up time possible. They want voters to know the names, the faces. If Labour seriously doesn't deliver its decisions until the autumn or even the winter, they are limiting their potential for campaigning and will let their candidates loose at the time of year they least like campaigning, because people are more bothered about planning their Christmas than talking about politics on a cold damp doorstep. How did this happen? More than one person told me a plan for candidates had been drawn up by the Welsh Executive Committee and the party was ready to go, but then it was pulled, with no explanation. Before Eluned Morgan spoke, one long standing member told me she needed to row it back, stop talking about abstract things people can't grasp like green energy or economic summits, get back to three things - education, waiting times and social care. Then she went on stage and announced Wales was to be an AI wonder zone. Yes lots of people were talking about that idea as they filtered out of the hall but not in a good way. The big ideas she likes talking about about economic summits and green jobs are too abstract for Mrs Jones on the street. They need simpler messages. What is telling is how many people, even senior figures, have no idea what the next year holds. But no-one in Labour is talking about Labour being the biggest party. They are reasonably optimistic that they will get more than 18%, but a lot of that will be down to people not turning out for Reform or turning out at all, not because they actually want to back Labour. Eluned Morgan might claim "we are family" but this is far from a happy one.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The bluster and waffle of George Freeman
Retromania is well and truly upon us. Neil Young just headlined Glastonbury. Noel Edmonds is back on the telly. And a Tory MP has been turned over by a Sunday newspaper in a cash-for-questions scandal. Tonight we're gonna party like it's 1997. The humiliated party this time around is George Freeman, a former science minister in Rishi Sunak's government. He left frontline politics before frontline politics had the chance to leave him – and he was last heard from moaning in 2024 that he was unable to afford a £2,000-a-month mortgage on his £118,000 ministerial salary. After that, he found a side-hustle that better answered his needs – advising an environmental monitoring company called GHGSat, which paid him £5,000 a month for just eight hours of work between last April and March this year. When he took the job, he quite properly consulted Acoba, the regulator that presides over the ethics of private-sector appointments for former ministers and civil servants. GHGSat have said that they 'retained George Foreman MP for a brief period' and that their agreement with him 'did not include any lobbying activities'. Since Foreman remains a trade envoy and a member of the Science and Technology Committee, Acoba quite properly went out of its way to warn him that given 'this is a company that is interested in government policy and decisions relating to the civil space sector and emissions… there are risks associated with your influence and network of contacts gained whilst in ministerial office'. Acoba says Foreman specifically assured it that he had 'made it clear to the company that [he would] not lobby government on its behalf'. Anyway, now he's in the soup because the Sunday Times has established that while he was in this company's employment he appears to have tabled several written questions in relation to the areas of GHGSat's commercial interests, in consultation with – and in some cases adopting the exact language of – the company's senior executives. (It's merely the icing on the cake that he appears to have further contravened ethics rules by using his parliamentary offices to host meetings related to his outside commercial interests.) Foreman asked his staffer to tick 'any 'interest declaration' box if there is one', when he tabled the questions, which tells parliament that an MP has asked a question relating to one of their registered interests. The facts appear to be undisputed. He took money from this company. He was specifically warned against using his position in parliament to the company's advantage, and he gave undertakings not to. He then went on not only to table several parliamentary questions the answers to which may have been to the potential commercial advantage of this company, but leaked emails show he asked the company's managing director in writing for advice on 'what to ask about'. It's not just that all this is what the young folk like to call a bad look. It's the pious inanity of his response that really hoists the old eyebrows. No doubt under the advice of some spin-doctor telling him to 'get out in front of the story', he made great show of referring himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. His statement to the Sunday Times when all this came to light was as follows: As a longstanding advocate of important new technologies, companies and industries, working cross-party through APPGs [All-Party Parliamentary Groups] and the select committee, I regularly ask experts for clarification on technical points and terminology, and deeply respect and try to assiduously follow the code of conduct for MPs and the need to act always in the public interest. Throughout my 15 years in parliament (and government) I have always understood the need to be transparent in the work I have done for and with commercial clients and charities and am always willing to answer any criticism. I don't believe I have done anything wrong but I am immediately referring myself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will accept his judgment in due course. We can ignore most of that long feather-puffing opening sentence and all the long feather-puffing second one. And at the third, we can laugh aloud with great merriment: here is such a stickler for the rules, such a deep and assiduous respecter of the need for full transparency, that he voluntarily hands himself in to the Commissioner for Standards the moment that his emails are leaked to the Sunday Times. I imagine transposing the same situation to my own home The nub of all that bluster and waffle appears to be that his defence to the charge of asking questions on behalf of the company is that he was asking questions on his own behalf and simply consulting the company to help him get the technical language right. These things he was asking about were just things that he, personally, happened to be interested in – or at least thought would serve the public good – and it is the merest coincidence that they are also things that the company which paid him £60,000-odd could stand to profit from. Perhaps, indeed, this defence stands up. Even parliament is not without its Candide-like innocents. But it seems to me that if he really was all that determined not only to behave with exemplary probity, but to make sure that not a whiff of an ethical lapse should attend him, it might have occurred to him to mention the whole thing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards beforehand. Just, y'know, to know where he stood on the whole thing. I imagine transposing the same situation to my own home. Let us say I discover (not at all an implausible situation) that the box of chocs I have deposited in the fridge for the teacher's end-of-term present – and which I specifically told the children not to help themselves to – has vanished. I imagine confronting my daughter. 'Did you eat the chocolates I told you not to eat?' 'Certainly not. I should say that as a long-term champion of secondary education and our hardworking teachers, I have from time to time found it appropriate to make sure that no educators are in danger of eating potentially poisoned chocolate.' 'There's chocolate wrappers on the floor of your room, and an empty chocolate box in your bin.' 'I have striven, throughout my career as a child and now young adult, at all times assiduously to obey parental instructions, and I have no recollection of knowingly doing anything to contravene them. Filial duty has always been my watchword, and my conscience is clear. But in keeping with my determination to uphold the very highest standards in domestic life, I'm voluntarily referring myself to the independent ombudsman and will accept his judgment in due course.' 'What are you talking about? There's literally a smudge of chocolate on your chin.' 'I don't think it would be appropriate to pre-empt the findings of the inquiry, do you?' 'I'm stopping your pocket money for a week.' 'Actually, I think you'll need to raise my pocket money to help pay for the independent investigation into the matter. I have always been a firm believer in going through the appropriate procedures.' Anyway, we'll await the judgment in due course and lay in some chocs to munch for when the time comes.
