Responding, Geidt said: “I absolutely appreciate what you’ve said, Mr McDonnell, about the record of BAE Systems. But I place my reliance, in taking on this role, on the attitude of the British government that is active in licensing the activity of BAE Systems.”
He added: “I was proud to do this work for a couple of years, because it did align with my previous experience and interests.”
MPs have also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest with BAE Systems, which is a major government contractor. The company has won billions of pounds worth of contracts since Boris Johnson became prime minister, including lucrative work on the Test and Trace scheme.
The company enjoys unparalleled access to the governments. Records compiled by Transparency International show that BAE Systems has been granted more meetings with ministers than any other company over the past ten years, with at least 209 meetings since 2012.
Geidt’s work for BAE Systems was fully declared in his register of interests for the House of Lords and King’s College, and there is no suggestion he broke any rules.
Academics at King’s College are also set to vote on whether to demand that the college “publish all its links with arms companies and draw up plans to end them promptly”.
It comes as the union petitions for a democratised management structure, which it says is “almost entirely unelected”.
Ministers’ financial interests
As the prime minister’s new ethics adviser, Lord Geidt had promised to publish the long-overdue register of ministerial interests – which could finally lift the lid on any donations that were made to Boris Johnson for his Downing Street refurb.
The Electoral Commission is currently investigating the affair, saying that there were “reasonable grounds” to suspect multiple offences may have been committed.
Boris Johnson says he has now personally covered the cost of the refurb, but questions remain about whether wealthy Tory donors had initially paid for it without the details being declared.
The register of ministerial interests – which is meant to be published twice yearly – would normally reveal such information. But it was only published once last year, in July, and has not been updated since. This means that the entire government is in breach of transparency rules.
Comments
We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.