A crossbench peer and former ethics adviser to Boris Johnson has been found to have broken House of Lords rules by joining a meeting with Ministry of Defence officials on behalf of a US satellite company that was paying him.
Christopher Geidt, a former royal aide to Queen Elizabeth II, was asked by the House of Lords conduct committee to write a letter of apology after the standards commissioner found he “provided a parliamentary service in return for payment or other reward”.
The commissioner investigated Lord Geidt following a complaint that he had attended a meeting on behalf of Theia, a now defunct satellite company, in May 2021 with Ministry of Defence officials.
At the time, Theia was proposing a satellite system offering “full intelligence and surveillance capacity”, with civilian and defence applications exceeding the UK’s capability in space, which Geidt said the Ministry of Defence and Department for Business were both interested in. Geidt told the commissioner his role had been to ensure the company’s contacts with the government “were conducted properly”.
The meeting was conducted virtually, and the commissioner found that Geidt had made some introductory remarks.
“The commissioner finds that by doing so Lord Geidt provided a parliamentary service in return for payment or other reward. There was in 2021 an absolute prohibition on the provision of such services,” the report said.
Geidt had been given the role as Johnson’s adviser on ministerial interests in April 2021. He had taken up a role advising Theia Group Inc in January 2021, and his other interests included working on the advisory board of defence company BAE Systems.
The commissioner said the attendance of the Theia meeting by Geidt in May 2021 was not “a significant breach of the code” but it was a breach, and he recommended that Geidt write a letter of apology to the chair of the conduct committee.
Geidt appealed, claiming the finding was “plainly wrong”, and claiming among other points that his appointment at Theia was entirely unconnected with his membership of the House of Lords. However, the appeal was not upheld.
Geidt also argued that the scrutiny by the cabinet secretary and Cabinet Office of his interests, including his work for Theia, demonstrated compliance with his obligations under the code. However, this was also rejected, as it was not the cabinet secretary’s role to advise on parliamentary rules.
The committee recommended that Geidt write a letter of apology, which it described as “the mildest sanction available”. It also said there were “several mitigating factors, including Geidt’s evident desire to comply with the rules, demonstrated by the fact that he sought the advice of the cabinet secretary”.
“We also note that the parliamentary service Lord Geidt provided to Theia Group Inc was a one-off meeting, in which he played a very limited role,” the report said. “We are persuaded that his breach of the code of conduct was an oversight.”
A spokesperson for Geidt said: “The report acknowledges that Lord Geidt acted honourably in his evident desire to comply with the rules at all times.
“Despite that, the commissioner recommended the mildest sanction of writing a letter of apology to the committee’s chair for the ‘oversight’, which he has duly done.
“Lord Geidt has a formidable record of public service, including as private secretary to Queen Elizabeth and as the independent adviser on ministers’ interests.”
Separately, the conduct committee found that John Mann, a non-affliated peer and former Labour MP, breached provisions relating to the registration of interests and use of House of Lords facilities, and dismissed his appeal.
It found Mann had failed to record support from the Antisemitism Policy Trust in his register of interests and had used his parliamentary office for his work as the government’s adviser.
On his appointment by the government, Mann had not been provided with an office or civil service support, but while the commissioner expressed “sympathy”, he found the peer had broken a rule requiring parliamentary offices be used primarily to support parliamentary work.
The conduct committee said there had been “an assumption in government” that the House of Lords would provide accommodation needed to support his work.
On that basis, the committee downgraded the sanction recommended by the commissioner, requiring Mann only to write a letter of apology to the chair of the committee rather than make a personal statement of apology in the house.
