George Freeman, MP for Mid Norfolk, refers himself to watchdog over 'cash for questions' allegations
The Conservative MP for Mid Norfolk has referred himself to the parliamentary watchdog after he was accused of taking money to ask questions of government on behalf of a private company.
The Times reported that George Freeman broke multiple rules set out in the MP's code of conduct, including lobbying on behalf of a private company.
The report alleged that he was paid by firm that helped him write questions which were submitted to Labour ministers.
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 and Labour called for Tory leader Kemi Badenoch to suspend him.
A Labour spokesperson said: 'Cash for questions was a hallmark of Tory sleaze in the 1990s, and three decades on the same issue has raised its head again.
'George Freeman has referred himself for investigation so now Kemi Badenoch must suspend him from the Tory whip.'
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
Spectator
32 minutes 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.
Times
34 minutes ago
- Times
Labour must get a grip or its entire economic plan could unravel
Twelve months on from Labour's general election landslide, it is a good time to ditch the slogans and soundbites — and I am afraid there will be plenty of those this week — and assess what the latest economic data says about Labour's stewardship of the economy. From my standpoint its record is neither disastrous, nor dazzling. There is a credible argument that things could have been considerably worse given the structural challenges inherited from the Conservatives. Yet a series of policy missteps have needlessly sapped momentum. In essence, Labour's first year has been defined less by a transformative economic mission and more by steady progress, punctuated by damaging miscalculation. To give credit where it is due, this government appears to be learning on the job. But it is also true that there has been a lot to learn from — unforced errors on welfare reform, labour market policy and the management of the public finances have blunted early optimism among the UK business community. A persistently tricky international backdrop has not helped either. Let us begin our assessment with GDP — that most central, yet blunt, measurement tool. Growth in GDP since Labour entered office in July last year has not collapsed, nor has it accelerated meaningfully. On an international comparative basis, the UK has largely tracked the G7 average, growing by a compound 0.8 per cent in US dollar terms across the last three quarters. GDP per capita, a more revealing metric of national wellbeing, has risen by a modest 0.3 per cent. This is an improvement after two years of declines, but hardly a stirring renaissance. Inflation remains central to household perceptions of the government's economic competency, and its record here is mixed. Headline inflation peaked at more than 11 per cent well before Labour took power and has markedly softened since. However, the core problem, quite literally, lies in 'core inflation' which remains stubbornly high at an annualised 3.5 per cent. Above-inflation increases to the national living wage and public sector pay have added volatility to service prices just as the Bank of England was seeking calm. April's spike in consumer price inflation, though partially driven by regulated costs like air fares and energy levies, has muddied the water for monetary policy. This dissonance — between a government talking up interest rate cuts and simultaneously fuelling wage pressures — has not gone unnoticed at the Bank. We should be wary of attributing lower interest rates as the fruit of government policy. They are being delivered despite it. Turning to fiscal policy and the record is equally chequered. While the cost for the UK government to borrow for ten years — the ten-year gilt yield — has held steady in nominal terms, the interest rate spread that the UK pays compared with its G7 peers has widened to a worrying 1.25 percentage points. This reflects heightened debt issuance pressure after the October budget, and market suspicion about the UK's long-term fiscal sustainability. If rebellious Labour backbenchers think this arithmetic magically improves with a change of chancellor I have some bad news for them. The financial markets see Rachel Reeves as considerably more credible than the vast majority of alternatives within the Labour parliamentary party. Against this backdrop the autumn budget now looms large. Having left herself just £9.9 billion of headroom against her primary fiscal rule back in March, the chancellor now faces slippage on multiple fronts. Public sector borrowing has risen faster than forecast. The headwinds from U-turns on welfare reform and winter fuel payments threaten to eat into nearly half of the existing cushion. Visa reforms that suppress labour force growth and murmurings about the two-child benefit cap could further erode fiscal wriggle room. And the private sector is signalling unease with what is to come on tax. Since the general election, both deposits and the household savings rate have risen. This looks like a quiet vote of no confidence in the economic outlook and shows that speculative fiscal noise has a real cost: muted consumer spending, and deferred investment. But Labour's biggest headache is that it has sowed itself problems in the jobs market. Payroll employment, once a bright spot, has stalled since July 2024. Critics rightly argue that employer national insurance increases, combined with expanded employment rights and minimum wage hikes, have depressed hiring appetite. Two caveats are worth considering. First, payroll data may understate real employment if more workers are now classifying as self-employed to avoid higher employer contributions. Indeed Labour Force Survey data — though statistically compromised — shows overall employment still rising. Nonetheless, qualitative data from the Bank of England's decision maker panel confirms a palpable pullback in hiring intentions. This is consistent with the broader trend: firmer labour market regulation may be well-intentioned, but it is weighing on labour demand. The second caveat is that green shoots are now emerging in labour market participation which has inched upwards — possibly aided by NHS capacity improvements. Yet the metric that matters most for fiscal arithmetic — productivity — remains worryingly flat. If the Office for Budget Responsibility downgrades its productivity assumptions in the coming weeks, the government's already tight headroom could vanish entirely ahead of the budget. So what happens this autumn? The chancellor faces a vexing equation. Maintain fiscal rules, avoid tax rises on working people (her words, not mine!), protect spending pledges, and hold her parliamentary party together. At least one of these constraints looks certain to give. Options are narrowing. Loosening rules risks a bond market backlash. New taxes or spending cuts risk backbench revolt and sap economic momentum. Supply-side tweaks — such as speeding up infrastructure approvals or revisiting the North Sea tax and licencing regime — offer some room, but their fiscal payoff is modest and long term. The chancellor may also be tempted to revisit the policy of interest paid on central bank reserves. This is a potentially lucrative move but one fraught with risks to monetary policy effectiveness as her governor, Andrew Bailey, has recently noted in response to similar proposals from Reform UK. None of these options are easy. Some are not credible. But the current fiscal impasse is even less sustainable. Yet mere policy competence will not be enough. The fiscal debate is increasingly constrained not by in-year numbers, but by a refusal to confront long term trade-offs on healthcare spending and pensions. If the government truly wishes to spark the 'renewal' it promised, it must move from a mindset of management to one of reform. The alternative is a parliament of drift — marked by tactical retreats, fiscal fudge and faster growth that never quite arrives. In the months ahead, the OBR's pen may prove more consequential than the chancellor's speeches. Should productivity assumptions fall, the government's entire economic strategy could yet unravel. The risk, as ever, is not that the centre cannot hold — but that no one dares to grip the centre at all.
STV News
36 minutes ago
- STV News
Growing mental health crisis among Scottish police officers, Labour warns
Labour has warned of a 'growing mental health crisis' among Scottish police officers, as figures show the number of officers taking time off because of psychological issues rose by more than 50% over the last three years. The figures, obtained by the party via a Freedom of Information request, show the number of officers off work because of anxiety, depression, stress or post-traumatic stress rose from 814 in 2021 to 1,236 in 2024, an increase of 52%. The figures also show the number of officers taking time off grew each year over the period, with 1,024 in 2022 and 1,102 in 2023. The party said the figures showed officers are at 'breaking point' and called on the government to address the 'mounting pressures' facing officers. Scottish Labour Justice spokesperson Pauline McNeill said: 'It's clear police in Scotland are at breaking point after years of SNP mismanagement and neglect. 'We owe it to police officers to ensure they have the support they need while they work to keep our communities safe, but it's clear that is not the case under the SNP. 'The SNP has let police officer numbers collapse over the last five years, piling pressure on remaining officers and threatening to undermine public safety. 'The SNP must wake up to this growing mental health crisis and work with Police Scotland to support officers struggling with stress, trauma or poor mental health. 'Dealing with this crisis is vital to keeping police officers in work and on duty at a time when we need visible officers in communities. 'Police officers cannot keep bearing the brunt of SNP failure – more must be done to support police and the vital work they do.' Earlier this year it was reported that the number of days taken off by police officers and staff suffering from mental ill health rose from 63,797 in 2019/20 to 96,509 in 2023/24, a 51.3% rise Deputy Chief Constable Alan Speirs said: 'The health and welfare of our officers and staff remains one of Police Scotland's highest priorities with enhanced provisions from both our Employee Assistance and Your Wellbeing Matters programmes. 'This will be further enhanced through the implementation of our new HR structure with increased resource within our Health and Wellbeing team. 'We also have a range of mechanisms in place to support our employees who are absent from work for any reason. 'We continue to work with our occupational health provider to support police officers and staff in their journey back to health and, subsequently, to work.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Police officers and staff do a challenging job and we have welcomed the Chief Constable's commitment to workforce wellbeing. 'Staff and officers can access a range of services to support their physical and mental wellbeing. 'This includes access to a 24/7 employee assistance programme, and direct access to occupational health services. 'We are investing a record £1.64bn for policing in 2025-26, an increase of £90m on 2024-25, and Police Scotland took on more recruits in 2024-25 than at any time since 2013, with more intakes planned this year.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
