ÒÁÈËÖ±²¥

Dear Sir Grant

Thank you for your response to my letter of 3 October in respect of your work with Cambridge Aerospace and a report we received from a member of the public suggesting that you may be in breach of the conditions ACOBA provided in its advice to you. Our exchange of correspondence is attached in the annex.

1. Attendance at Defence and Security Equipment International UK (DSEI UK) on behalf of Cambridge Aerospace

You told ACOBA that you did attend DSEI UK but obtained a pass in a personal capacity and attended relatively briefly, and not as a representative of Cambridge Aerospace. 

2. The nature of Cambridge Aerospace’s work is focused on defence, as opposed to civilian, use of its technology/products

You told ACOBA that the developments in technology the company is working on have become ‘an even more urgent necessity’ in respect of civilian airspace over the last year. You described some of your work with the company – to demonstrate compliance with ACOBA’s advice to only work in civilian aerospace and not to work in defence. You said you support the company’s research into technology to safeguard against incursions into airspace, by:

• providing your speciality knowledge in ‘airspace conspicuity’.^{[footnote ]}
• researching airspace safety, aviation resilience and electronic conspicuity.

You described, for example, engaging with civil aviation authorities in Europe to learn from recent airspace incursions. You said this included considering technical approaches which can be taken – e.g. through radar and physical interception, both of which are directly relevant to Cambridge Aerospace’s research and development. 

ACOBA’s advice to you acknowledged there was a risk this work was relevant to defence, and that it might overlap with your time as Secretary of State for Defence – hence we advised you to avoid this area of work entirely. 

There is limited information in the public domain about this company’s work, but it all currently indicates that Cambridge Aerospace operates only in defence. 

Therefore, whilst I am grateful for your clarification on the company’s work and your specific involvement in aviation and aerospace – this is not consistent with the information currently in the public domain including on the company’s website and LinkedIn page. I would ask that you take all necessary steps to correct this. In line with ACOBA’s policy of transparency, our correspondence on this matter will be published on our website.

Isabel Doverty
Interim Chair
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

---

3. Annex – exchange of correspondence

7 October 2025 

Dear Isabel, 

Thank you for your letter of 3 October 2025. I remain grateful for ACOBA’s continuing guidance and advice. 

You raise a concern from a member of the public that I attended the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) on behalf of Cambridge Aerospace. I can state unequivocally that this is not the case. I did not attend DSEI as a representative of Cambridge Aerospace. 

For complete clarity, I applied for and obtained my own visitor’s pass in a personal capacity, not from any company. I was not an exhibitor and nor did I seek to act as an exhibitor. Indeed, apart from a brief stop at the Cambridge Aerospace stand – measured in minutes not hours – I spent the remainder of my visit elsewhere within the exhibition. Finally, whilst the exhibition itself runs over a number of days, I visited for a couple of hours. 

Turning to the second issue raised in your letter, it is true that risks to civilian airspace have increased markedly over the past year, with repeated drone incursions against critical national infrastructure including, but not restricted to airports. Within the last two months alone, major hubs in Germany, Denmark and Poland have suffered disruption. Similar events have occurred in the UK in the past and are, regrettably, likely to recur in the future. The development of technology – including aerial interceptors – to protect airspace has therefore become an even more urgent necessity. 

My three decades of experience in aviation and airspace management, including as a qualified pilot over that entire period, allow me to contribute specialist knowledge in airspace conspicuity. That expertise supports Cambridge Aerospace’s research into technologies designed to safeguard airspace from incursion.

I am mindful that ACOBA’s formal advice provided last autumn and published this summer included four specific provisions, each of which I have outlined below: 

3.1 No disclosure or use of privileged information 

I can confirm that my work is based on publicly available material and my personal expertise in aviation and aerospace. I have neither disclosed nor utilised privileged or confidential information gained during ministerial office. 

3.2 No lobbying or use of government contacts 

I have refrained entirely from lobbying the UK government, its departments, or arm’s length bodies – whether directly or indirectly. I have made no attempt to influence policy or obtain funding, and I have instructed colleagues accordingly. Even after the advisory period expires in eight months, I have no intention of engaging in any lobbying activity. 

3.3 No involvement in bids or contracts with government 

I have not, and will not, participate in any work concerning bids, tenders, or contracts with the UK government or its agencies. This position will remain unchanged beyond the conclusion of ACOBA’s advisory period. 

3.4 Restriction to civilian aerospace, not defence 

My relevant expertise is directed towards research into areas such as airspace safety, aviation resilience, and electronic conspicuity. A real-world example of this is by helping to draw lessons from recent European airspace incursions through engagement with the relevant continental civil aviation authorities to discuss what lessons can be drawn from these airspace incursions including, but not limited to, which technical approaches can be taken to counter the attacks including through radar and physical interception, which is of direct relevance to Cambridge Aerospace R&D. 

I hope that this helps to clarify matters and remain grateful for ACOBA’s continuing advice. 

Yours sincerely, 

Sir Grant Shapps

---

3 October 2025

By email

Dear Sir Grant

I am writing to you in my capacity as Interim Chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA). You sought and received advice from ACOBA on joining Cambridge Aerospace as Chair. A member of the public has reported that your work with Cambridge Aerospace is in breach of the conditions as set out in ACOBA’s advice letter.

You sought and received advice from ACOBA on your appointment with Cambridge Aerospace before taking up the role. You told ACOBA:

1. the company was a start up in the aerospace sector, focused on civilian aerospace.
2. you would be starting the company with Professor Steven Barrett, Regius Professor of Engineering (Aviation and Aeronautical) at Cambridge University.
3. the company would undertake research and development for the first two to three years, aiming to develop technologies to reduce risks to aviation. 
4. the initial focus of the company would be on technology required to help civilian operators remain open.
5. the company would likely collaborate with other research institutions, universities, and private sector companies in the global aviation industry.
6. there would be no lobbying or contact with the UK government.

A member of the public contacted ACOBA with concerns that:

1. you attended Defence and Security Equipment International UK (DSEI UK) on behalf of Cambridge Aerospace – taking up a position on its stand at the exhibition; and
2. Cambridge Aerospace is reportedly a defence technology firm which unveiled, at DSEI UK, two defence-related products: Skyhammer and Starhammer. These are designed to address the need for ‘hard-kill air defence solutions for missiles and uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs)’.

The advice you received was based on the details you provided – that the company was in the research and development phase and would be focussed on civilian application. ACOBA was concerned that this technology had potential application in the defence sector and specifically advised that you were not to have any involvement in defence work. 

Had you told ACOBA that you were seeking to work with a start-up that was focused on defence technology, ACOBA would have advised this role was unsuitable as there would be no credible way to mitigate reasonable concerns that you would offer, or be seen to offer, an unfair advantage to any such company, as the former Secretary of State for Defence. 

It is difficult to reconcile the publicly available information about what the company is now doing with the details you provided in your application. Further, if, as alleged, you did attend DSEI UK, this would be a clear breach of ACOBA’s advice. 

You were advised (in paragraph 17 of your advice letter) of the need to inform us if you proposed to extend or otherwise change the nature of your role as, depending on the circumstances, it might be necessary for you to make a fresh application.

ACOBA therefore requires an explanation for what appears to be a breach of the government’s Rules. 

If you wish your explanation to be published alongside this correspondence, please reply to this letter by close of business on Wednesday 8 October 2025. Any failure to respond will be included in the published material.

Isabel Doverty
Interim Chair
ACOBA