“It’s all about who you know”: Jeremy Hunt’s accountant boasts of invitation to Foreign Office to meet then foreign secretary

1. In autumn 2018, Jeremy Hunt‘s accountant, David Grunberg, boasted to his clients about his invitation to the Foreign Office to meet Mr Hunt, the then foreign secretary. Plugging his Brexit advice, Mr Grunberg revealed he’d discussed Brexit with his cabinet-minister client that day.
2. Mr Grunberg is the founder of accountancy firm Grunberg & Co, where he was until recently the senior partner. He’s now a consultant at the firm, the website shows (screen shot in Figure 1).
   

   Figure 1. Grunberg & Co website: David Grunberg at 20 February 2020

3. The founder sends clients of Grunberg & Co a monthly email newsletter, “Financial Therapy – Three Minute session with David Grunberg”.
4. In October 2018, there Mr Grunberg reported back on his meeting at the Foreign Office with “long-time contact of our firm” Mr Hunt: “We had some time to discuss Brexit and the ongoing uncertainty that the country is facing. It was clear that Jeremy understood the fears and concerns of many of our clients, and was able to share some useful thoughts about the progress of the talks, and proposed future arrangements for the UK.” (screen shot in Figure 2) The accountant went on to advertise his – not the foreign secretary‘s – readiness to discuss clients’ “preparations for Brexit”.
   

   Figure 2. David Grunberg’s “Financial Therapy” newsletter October 2018

5. Meanwhile, Mr Grunberg couldn’t resist writing again the next month about his meeting with client Mr Hunt in Whitehall, which was only possible because the accountant had “pulled a few strings” (screen shot in Figure 3). He told his readers: “As they say, it’s all about who you know and thankfully as a long-term contact of our firm, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt was more than happy to spend time with me.” Mr Grunberg finished with more bragging: “At Grunberg & Co we are constantly meeting with key decision-makers both here in the UK and overseas to ensure that our clients are prepared for whatever the future may bring.” What access to power!
   

   Figure 3. David Grunberg’s “Financial Therapy” newsletter November 2018

6. Here Mr Hunt’s conduct undermines public trust and confidence in ministers and government.
7. It’s surely inappropriate for the foreign secretary to meet his accountant at the Foreign Office to discuss, well, what exactly? They covered “a wide range of matters”, says Mr Grunberg (Figure 2) Suffice to say, the accountant handles Mr Hunt‘s private interests, not government business.
8. Further, was Mr Grunberg lobbying the senior minister on behalf of another client(s)? The accountant’s boasts about his access to the foreign secretary and other “key decision-makers” risk creating the impression he (Mr Grunberg) acts as a political lobbyist.
9. Equally, it’s surely inappropriate for Mr Grunberg to use his business relationship with the cabinet minister to promote Grunberg & Co. Why does Mr Hunt allow his accountant to use their business relationship this way?
10. Now on the back benches, Mr Hunt has recently launched a new venture with Mr Grunberg. Both are trustees of fledgling charity Patient Safety Watch (screen shot in Figure 4). Mr Hunt became a trustee on 18 December 2019, according to the register of MPs’ financial interests. That both are trustees of the same charity is problematic given the two are linked and non-independent. There’s only one other trustee, too: patient safety campaigner James Titcombe.
    

    Figure 4. Charity Commission website: trustees of Patient Safety Watch at 20 February 2020

11. What’s more, the chief executive of Patient Safety Watch is one of Mr Hunt’s former ministerial special advisers: Adam Smith. Cosy!
12. Patient Safety Watch deserves scrutiny for another reason. It represents another corporate reporting failing by Mr Hunt.
13. Patient Safety Watch is a charitable company, and as such is registered with Companies House, as well as the Charity Commission. Yet the charitable company has failed to report Mr Hunt is a director (trustee) (screen shot in Figure 5). It‘s a legal requirement for firms to keep their records at Companies House up to date.
    

    Figure 5. Companies House website: officers of Patient Safety Watch at 20 February 2020

14. As I say, this isn’t the first time the former cabinet minister has messed up over Companies House filings. On 9 April 2018, I exclusively revealed that the then health secretary hadn’t filed correct “persons with significant control” information for who owned his and his wife’s firm, Mare Pond Properties Limited. Mr Hunt duly corrected the errors straightaway after my email – but didn’t respond to requests for comment. On 13 April 2018, the Daily Telegraph newspaper used my investigation as the basis of its front-page lead story, “Hunt admits breaking rules over luxury flats”. The rest of the national press followed up the story the next day.
15. Mare Pond Properties Limited and Patient Safety Watch share the same north London registered office address – the head office of Grunberg & Co. The accountancy firm was also the company formation agent for Mare Pond Properties Limited, date of incorporation: 19 September 2017.
16. Mr Hunt didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment before a reasonable deadline.

Telegraph reports my upheld complaint about the conduct of Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington

1. On 19 February 2020, the Daily Telegraph newspaper reported my upheld complaint to the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards about the conduct of Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (see previous post).
2. Here’s a scanned copy of the Telegraph story in its print edition (“Lord Stevens apologises for work declaration omissions”): Telegraph 19 Feb 2020.

Chair and director Lord Stevens is also self-employed consultant to his own company

1. Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington was commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police from 2000 until 2005. Among other roles, he’s now chair and a director of Quest Global Limited, a company whose business is “investigations and integrity services”, according to the register of lords’ interests. The peer is also a self-employed consultant to his own company – an arrangement that warrants scrutiny.
2. On 26 July 2019, The Guardian newspaper revealed in its print edition that Quest Global was involved in the dispute between the ruler of Dubai and his estranged Jordanian princess wife.
3. That day I emailed Lord Stevens at Quest Global. Back then the latest accounts were made up to 31 December 2017. There note 13 in the notes to the financial statements (“related-party transactions”) says: “During this year the director, [sic] Lord Stevens also charged consultancy fees to the value of £104 186 (2016: £99 225).” There I asked the peer why he chose in 2017 to be paid £104 186 as a consultant to the firm, rather than as an employee of it.
4. I didn’t receive a response to the email – nor to one a week later.
5. On 3 October 2019, Quest Global published its 2018 accounts. These show the arrangement continues; note 12 states: “During the year a director charged the company for consultancy fees to the value of £109 799 (2017: £104 186).”
6. On 18 December 2019, I again asked Lord Stevens at Quest Global for comment, in a third email, now also referring to the latest accounts. Still no response.
7. Why does this arrangement warrant scrutiny? Tax and National Insurance.
8. Directors are office holders, not necessarily employed by a company. Here the directors are employees, according to the 2018 accounts; note 2 (“employees”) says: “The average monthly number of persons (including directors) employed by the company during the year was 8 (2017: 8)”.
9. The register of lords’ interests confirms Lord Stevens is paid as a director of Quest Global (screen shot in Figure 1): “category 1”, “Directorships”, is for remunerated directorships only, according to the registration form. (https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-commissioner-for-standards/Registration-form-members.pdf)
   

   Figure 1. Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington: Register of Lords’ Interests at 18 December 2019

10. Employees pay income tax and National Insurance contributions under PAYE (Pay As You Earn). Self-employed workers aren’t paid through PAYE, however.
11. Quest Global avoids paying employer’s National Insurance for the services Lord Stevens provides as a self-employed consultant. In other words, it’s cheaper for the firm than paying him as an employee. Quest Global has a financial incentive to pay the peer as a self-employed consultant, therefore.
12. Here there are two key issues. First, is there a genuine separation between Lord Stevens’ director role, paid as an employee, and his other duties? Second, if there’s a genuine separation, does the peer pass the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) tests for self-employed status? If not, he should be paid as an employee for all his duties.
13. The Quest Global accounts don’t disclose the services Lord Stevens performs as a self-employed consultant – nor does the register of lords’ interests (Figure 1). On the latter the peer simply states “Stevens Consultancy” under “category 2” of registrable interest, “Remunerated employment, office, profession etc.” Nevertheless the registration form at “category 2” quotes para 53 of the “Guide to the Code of Conduct”: “Members who have paid posts as consultants or advisers should indicate the nature of the consultancy or advice given, for example ‘management consultant’, ‘legal adviser’ or ‘public affairs consultant’.” Thus it appears Lord Stevens is in breach of this requirement: he fails to state the nature of the consultancy.
14. Another problem with Lord Stevens’ entry on the register of lords’ interests is he omits to disclose a relevant interest under “category 3”, “Person with significant control of a company (PSC)”. Companies House records show he’s a PSC of Quest Global Holdings Limited, the parent (“holding”) company of Quest Global. Yet the peer hasn’t registered the interest – or any other – under “category 3”.
15. On 8 January 2020, I complained in writing to the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, about Lord Stevens’ two apparent breaches in relation to his disclosures on the register of lords’ interests. Two days later, Ms Scott-Moncrieff informed me by letter she’d investigate the complaint.
16. On 17 February 2020, the Commissioner published her report. (https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-commissioner-for-standards/Report-on-Lord-Stevens-of-Kirkwhelpington.pdf) There Ms Scott-Moncrieff upheld my complaint in full; and Lord Stevens accepted in a letter to her on 22 January 2020 that he’d breached the Code of Conduct in both cases. The peer now discloses the work of Stevens Consultancy on the register of lords’ interests: “investigations, security and integrity consulting services”.
17. Lord Stevens spoke at the 2016 Telegraph Business of Sport conference, the event website shows. There his speaker biography says: “In this role [chair of Quest Global], Lord Stevens led the inquiry for the Premier League into alleged irregular payments in football player transfers and an investigation into F1’s Crashgate.” (screen shot in Figure 2). That sentence casts doubt on the separation between the peer’s duties as a director and his other duties.
    

    Figure 2. 2016 Telegraph Business of Sport conference: event website at 7 January 2020

18. As I say, Lord Stevens at Quest Global didn’t respond to emailed requests for comment on his employment status there.
19. Here the peer’s non-responsiveness stands in contrast to something he said in his letter to Ms Scott-Moncrieff of 22 January 2020: “I am accordingly always conscientious of my duties under the Code [of Conduct] and sensitive to the general principles of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life” (CSPL). The 7 principles of public life, published on the CSPL website, include “accountability”. Under that heading, CSPL says: “Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.” Lord Stevens, though, didn’t respond to emailed queries about his employment status at Quest Global.

Care after Combat promotes Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party

1. On 30 January 2020, comedian Jim Davidson joined politician Nigel Farage at an event in central London to unveil a portrait of Mr Farage entitled “Mr Brexit”. Painter Dan Llywelyn Hall has donated his picture of the Brexit Party leader to military charity Care after Combat, whose founder and chief executive is Mr Davidson. The charity is auctioning the painting on its website to raise funds (screen shot in Figure 1). Care after Combat is currently tweeting about the event and auction (screen shot in Figure 2).
   

   Figure 1. Care after Combat website: auction of “Mr Brexit” portrait of Nigel Farage at 7 February 2020

2. The following day, Brexit Day, the Daily Telegraph newspaper published an account by political sketch writer Michael Deacon of the unveiling of the painting. (Daily Telegraph 31 Jan 2020) Brexiteer Mr Davidson is a “close friend” of Mr Farage and gave a speech at the event.
   

   Figure 2. Care after Combat tweets about unveiling of “Mr Brexit” and auction on 31 January 2020

3. Yet charities must be politically neutral.
4. Worse, this isn’t the first time Care after Combat has engaged in party-political campaigning.
5. On 20 October 2018, I revealed that the charity was tweeting profusely in support of the Conservatives. This and other of my findings prompted charity regulator the Charity Commission to open a regulatory compliance case into Care after Combat (see 12 December 2018 post).
6. Despite the commission’s intervention, the charity resumed tweeting in support of the Tories during the last general election (see 27 November 2019 post). Private Eye magazine reported that exposé (see 14 December 2019 post).
7. Care after Combat has been closely linked to the Conservatives from the beginning (see 20 October 2018 post). Mr Davidson is a longstanding public supporter of the party. He’s a well-known Brexiteer, too.
8. The charity shows blatant and repeated disregard for both the requirement for political neutrality and the Charity Commission. Care after Combat has no credibility while it acts this way.
9. When asked for comment, a Charity Commission spokesperson said in an email: “We will be assessing the matters you have brought to our attention, and looking into Care after Combat’s overall compliance with previous advice and guidance, notably on the importance of ensuring it follows the rules around campaigning and political activity. Charities should be distinct from other types of organisations in their attitude and behaviour, in their motivations and methods. That must include ensuring any involvement they have with political parties is balanced.”