Barry Gardiner, shadow international trade secretary, was in the eye of the storm when he found himself embroiled in a controversy which claimed that he has received over £180,000 in staff costs from a firm that acts as chief legal adviser to the Chinese embassy.
An investigation by The Times has established that the 59-year-old shadow minister has been employing the son of the firm’s founder in his Westminster office. The payments from law firm Christine Lee & Co are partly going towards this son’s salary, parliamentary records show.
The £182,284 pays the wages of two of Mr Gardiner’s Westminster aide, one of whom is Christine Lee’s son, Daniel Wilkes, parliamentary records show.
The donations began in September 2015, soon after Mr Gardiner became shadow minister for energy.
Mr Gardiner has been supportive of China’s attempts to get more involved in Britain’s nuclear industry, including the Hinkley Point power plant, which is part-funded by a Chinese state energy giant.
The donations from Christine Lee & Co were properly declared in the register of interests.
There is no suggestion the payments were improper but it could lead to accusations of a conflict of interest by party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s senior Labour figures.
One Labour source told the Times, “When you are in that kind of (shadow cabinet) role, it is problematic. Basically this woman is paying for her son to have a parliamentary pass.”
Mr Gardiner said Mr Wilkes worked as a volunteer for several months before getting a paid job on merit. The MP said he had never been “improperly influenced” by the law firm in relation to his conduct of his parliamentary and shadow ministerial duties.
If Mr Gardiner’s pro-Beijing stance in his shadow portfolios was a quid pro quo for the job of Ms Lee’s son with her firm’s money, this would be plainly corrupt.
Even if there was no suggestion of impropriety, Mr Gardiner’s conduct does not sit comfortably with the MPs’ code of conduct, which states that “holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties”.
It is unsual for a private firm, much less one with such close links to a foreign government, to cover the cost of parliamentary staff.
The Times editorial said if the commercial relationship and Mr Gardiner’s positions on Beijing were merely coincidental, it betrays not venality so much as naivety. Chinese investment in industry is not, in itself, objectionable. Indeed it is welcome. The involvement in critical infrastructure of a state that flouts international law and snatches secrets with abandon is another matter. Mr Gardiner should have known better than to embroil his office with its associates.
Barry Gardiner’s response
Barry Gardiner’s response to the media reports on this, as stated on his website: “Christine Lee & Co have generously supported my work as a Member of Parliament over many years since we first worked together to fight against plans to redevelop Oriental City and the loss of homes, livelihoods and community ties in Brent. The firm has enabled me to appoint a strong research support team to hold the government to account. This has always been transparently and appropriately recorded in the register of members’ interests. The Times article has revealed nothing that was not already in the public domain and they themselves admit that the secondment of staff was properly declared and state that ‘there is no suggestion of impropriety’.”
