Val Savage’s repeated plugs for brand of women’s incontinence products

1. 1. A few months ago, Val Savage, mum of football pundit Robbie Savage, started writing a weekly column in the Daily Mirror. Her son is a longstanding columnist at the newspaper.
   2. I say “writing”, but presumably Val’s column is ghostwritten like Robbie’s: the pundit recently disclosed on BBC Radio 5 live that Mirror sports writer Mike Walters does his.
   3. Anyway, there Val repeatedly plugs Tena Ladies, a range of women’s incontinence products. Tena is the manufacturer.
      

      Figure 1. Val Savage’s column in Daily Mirror on 29 August

      

      Figure 2. Val plugs Tena Ladies in her column on 29 August

   4. The latest example was on 29 August (screen shot in Figure 1), where the plug was at the end of her column (screen shot in Figure 2). As you can see, Val explicitly names the brand and fulsomely praises it – as she did on 18 April (screen shot in Figure 3), 23 May (screen shot in Figure 4), 27 June (screen shot in Figure 5) and 25 July (screen shot in Figure 6)!
      

      Figure 3. Val plugs Tena Ladies in her column on 18 April

      

      Figure 4. Val plugs Tena Ladies in her column on 23 May

   5. In other words, Val promotes Tena Ladies once a month.
      

      Figure 5. Val plugs Tena Ladies in her column on 27 June

      

      Figure 6. Val plugs Tena Ladies in her column on 25 July

   6. Val’s continual plugs suggest she and/or the Mirror is paid by Tena to do so. Further, Robbie’s mum omits to mention any other brand of women’s incontinence products when plugging Tena Ladies.
   7. A commercial relationship with Tena, if there’s one, should be clear and obvious. Val’s column is presented as editorial, but is it really advertising?

Why won’t MP with another job at local landowner say what the work involves?

1. 1. An MP with another job at a local landowner didn’t respond when asked in emails what the work involves. Nor did the landowner.
   2. Royston Smith is the Tory MP for Southampton, Itchen, and has been an MP continuously since 7 May 2015.
   3. Mr Smith has been paid by Barker-Mill Estates for “consultancy services” throughout his time as an MP, according to the register of MPs’ financial interests. On 28 July 2020, the MP registered receipt on 7 July 2020 of £6k from Barker-Mill Estates for the period 1 February 2020 – 30 April 2020. This, Mr Smith’s latest registered payment, was for 30 hours of work, 10 hours per month. So who are Barker-Mill Estates and what do they do?
   4. Unfortunately, Mr Smith omits to disclose that information on the register, despite being required to do so, if, as is the case here, the business of another employer isn’t self-evident. Barker-Mill Estates owns “several thousand acres” of land in Hampshire, the landowner website says.
   5. Another omission by Mr Smith is his failure to register what the work involves, again despite being required to do so. “Consultancy services” is unacceptably opaque.
   6. I asked Barker-Mill Estates in emails what exactly Mr Smith does for them. The landowner didn’t reply. The non-response is astonishing, given he’s an MP.
   7. I then put the same question to Mr Smith in emails, making clear Barker-Mill Estates had failed to respond on the matter. The MP didn’t reply, either.
   8. Mr Smith is owner and sole director of Vigilo Ltd, Companies House records show. Incorporated on 12 September 2006, Vigilo Ltd trades as RMJ Public Relations. The company is a “political consultancy”, according to the register of MPs’ financial interests.
   9. Which brings us to the website of RMJ Public Relations: it says nothing about the firm’s activities, being a simple holding page (screen shot in Figure 1). More opacity, therefore.
      

      Figure 1. RMJ Public Relations website at 30 June 2020

   10. Yet RMJ Public Relations hasn’t always been so coy about what it does and for whom: the website at 18 December 2014, for example, boasts: “we offer a complete public relations service including political liaison, community consultation and communication…” (screen shot in Figure 2). As you can see, its services are targeted at property developers.
       

       Figure 2. RMJ Public Relations website at 18 December 2014 (via the Wayback Machine)

   11. Under “political liaison” services, Mr Smith’s company at 14 August 2014 says: “Ultimately, politicians will have the final say on whether a planning application is granted or refused. It is, therefore, imperative to understand local sensitivities in order to be successful first time.” (screen shot in Figure 3). The firm goes on: “It is crucial to research thoroughly the local authority’s requirements as well as the concerns of individuals and local groups in advance of the application in order to avoid nasty surprises or even failure. We will carry out comprehensive research and analysis…”
       

       Figure 3. “Political liaison” page, RMJ Public Relations website at 14 August 2014 (via the Wayback Machine)

   12. The public record shows Barker-Mill Estates submits planning applications to local authorities. If Mr Smith is involved in any way with the landowner’s planning applications, such activities should be publicly disclosed.
   13. My investigations into senior Tory MP Sir Bob Neill, a former planning minister, led the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to open an inquiry into him, as the Daily Telegraph newspaper exclusively revealed on its front page on 22 June 2020 (see 22 June 2020 post and references therein). Those investigations show links between MPs and property developers should be scrutinised.
   14. RMJ Public Relations at 11 August 2014 also provides “public affairs” services, which include lobbying “political representatives (councillors, MPs, MEPs)” (screen shot in Figure 4).
       

       Figure 4. “Public affairs” page, RMJ Public Relations website at 11 August 2014 (via the Wayback Machine)

   15. Nevertheless Mr Smith isn’t registered as a public affairs practitioner with the PRCA Public Affairs Board (PAB), which publishes online a public lobbyist register. Just as well, really: PAB expressly forbids public affairs practitioners holding a parliamentary pass.
   16. For the avoidance of doubt, registration with PAB is voluntary.
   17. What’s more, on lobbying, para 12 of the MPs’ Code of Conduct explicitly says: “No Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House.”
   18. There’s no suggestion Mr Smith isn’t obeying the “no lobbying” rule at parliament. However, he did lobby MPs, among others, prior to entering parliament – or at least claimed such on the website then.
   19. There’s a need for clarity and transparency around Mr Smith’s “consultancy services” for Barker-Mill Estates. Equally troubling as the opacity is the MP’s unaccountability.

Key company in AA group fails to disclose transaction with AA Charitable Trust

1. 1. Registered as a charity on 22 July 2008, the AA Charitable Trust for Road Safety and the Environment (“the charity”) campaigns on road safety and, er, a “cleaner environment”.
   2. Edmund King, president of the AA, is also director (paid role) and a trustee (unpaid role) of the charity.
   3. I refer to the charity’s latest accounts, made up to 31 January 2019. There the “reimbursed costs” note in the notes to the financial statements says: “All salary costs have been reimbursed by Automobile Association Developments Limited.” (AADL)
   4. The charity and AADL are related parties.
   5. Meanwhile, I refer to AADL‘s latest accounts, also made up to 31 January 2019. There the “related-party transactions” note in the notes to the financial statements omits to disclose the transaction with the charity. Why?
   6. AADL is “the principal employer for the AA PLC group”, according to the “related-party transactions” note.
   7. When asked for comment, Jack Cousens, replying for Mr King, said in an email: “The AA Charitable Trust and AADL do not meet the accounting definition of a related party and therefore no disclosure is required.” (Mr Cousens is “head of roads policy”).
   8. By reply, I said I disagree.
   9. I refer to IAS 24 – Related Party Disclosures: https://www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ias/ias24. Please see section “Who are related parties?”, para (b) (viii): “The entity, or any member of a group of which it is a part, provides key management personnel services to the reporting entity or to the parent of the reporting entity”.
   10. Therefore, the charity and AADL are related parties.
   11. Mr Cousens didn’t respond to the second request for comment.

The Times reports my complaint to the ASA about Dame Kelly Holmes

1. On 15 August 2020, Martyn Ziegler, chief sports reporter, reported in The Times newspaper my complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about Dame Kelly Holmes (see previous post).
2. Mr Ziegler‘s report (“Holmes plug breaks rules”) appeared in his Sport Notebook column: The Times 15 Aug 2020.

Dame Kelly Holmes plugs brands on Twitter, without disclosure of interest

1. Dame Kelly Holmes plugged brands on Twitter, without disclosure of interest, during lockdown – until I complained to advertising regulator the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
2. On 6 June 2020, the double Olympic champion (Athens 2004) tweeted a gushing endorsement of Body Ballancer, finishing by exhorting her followers to “check out” the firm website (screen shot in Figure 1). As you can see, Dame Kelly failed to label the tweet as an ad: she didn’t use the label “#ad”, for example.
   

   Figure 1. Dame Kelly Holmes: tweet about Body Ballancer dated 6 June 2020

3. I complained to the ASA because of the sports star’s failure to label the tweet as an ad. On 26 June 2020, the ASA upheld my complaint in an email, adding it had that day communicated with Dame Kelly about the matter.
4. Meanwhile, the day before we both heard from the ASA, the double Olympic champion plugged another brand, BT, in two tweets, again without disclosure of interest (screen shot in Figure 2).
   

   Figure 2. Dame Kelly Holmes: two tweets about BT dated 25 June 2020

5. At date of publication Dame Kelly has 142k followers on the social media platform.
6. She isn’t the first Team GB Olympic gold medallist to plug brands on Twitter, without disclosure of interest: Sam Quek (Rio 2016) is another (see 12 May 2020 post). The Sam Quek exposé was picked up by national newspapers The Times and Daily Mail.
7. Dame Kelly didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Gambling and delayed transparency at the Social Market Foundation

1. The Social Market Foundation (SMF) is one of the better thinktanks for financial transparency – or at least that’s how it appears. “Britain’s leading cross-party thinktank”, a registered charity, discloses all funders by financial year in special documents on its website. Though the charity fails to reveal exact amounts received, grouping donors into broad bands instead.
2. Strangely, these funding disclosures aren’t made in the accounts, too. Those charities that disclose their donors almost always do so in their accounts, given those documents are on the public record at the Charity Commission website.
3. Sets of accounts are, by definition, historical. The funding disclosures on the SMF website are also historical. The charity uses a financial year end of 31 March. The latest publicly available accounts are made up to 31 March 2019. Similarly, the latest publicly available funding disclosures are for the same financial year. In other words, we know nothing about the SMF’s funding from 1 April 2019 onwards.
4. On 5 August 2020, the SMF published a report on gambling policy entitled “Gambling review and reform: towards a new regulatory framework”. Its authors are Dr James Noyes and Jake Shepherd.
5. Last week several national newspapers picked up the study, including the Financial Times, the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail.
6. Among other things, the report’s “acknowledgements” section says: “The SMF’s financial supporters include Derek Webb, who is also an associate member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Gambling Related Harm. Neither he nor the APPG have had any role in the research or writing of this report. The SMF retains full editorial independence over all its work.”
7. I asked the SMF to tell me how much Mr Webb has donated to date. I also asked the thinktank to break down the total by year.
8. By reply, SMF director James Kirkup directed me to the funding disclosures on the website, adding the data for the financial year ending 31 March 2020 will be published “in the autumn”.
9. I told Mr Kirkup the delay is disappointing. I went on: “As you know, timeliness is important. The SMF has just published the gambling report. For the avoidance of doubt, is the SMF refusing to say now how much Mr Webb has donated to the SMF from 1 April 2019 onwards?”
10. In his response, the former Telegraph political journalist wrote: “No, the SMF is not refusing to say how much Derek Webb has donated. Any and all donations by Derek Webb – as with all our supporters – will be declared in our annual declarations of funders, in line with our established timetable for publication.”
11. In other words, Mr Kirkup and the SMF are all for transparency – provided it’s delayed transparency.
12. Remember what the report’s “acknowledgements” section says about SMF funder Mr Webb. It identifies him as “an associate member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Gambling Related Harm”. What the SMF doesn’t say, though, is Mr Webb as an “associate member” funds the APPG: the latest parliamentary register of APPGs, as at 7 August 2020, shows he gave the group £30k on 30 January 2020. In fact, Mr Webb is listed as sole funder.
13. The first line of Dr Noyes‘ biography in his new report states: “Dr James Noyes is a former advisor to Tom Watson, ex-Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.” But who funded that role?
14. Dr Noyes says on the parliamentary register of interests of MPs’ staff as at 18 October 2019: “Paid for my role as Policy Advisor to Tom Watson MP by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling (gambling reform campaign).” (https://web.archive.org/web/20191106160409/https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsecret/contents.htm) So who funds that?
15. You might be able to guess where this is going… Mr Webb is the founder and funder of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling.
16. Mr Webb also funds a new campaign, Clean Up Gambling, which is run by Matt Zarb-Cousin. Previously Mr Zarb-Cousin led the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. It’s a small world – with Mr Webb and his deep pockets at its centre.
17. Searching the SMF’s last five years’ funding disclosures for “Derek Webb” produces no results. Therefore, it appears Mr Webb hasn’t donated to the thinktank from 1 April 2014 until 31 March 2019.
18. So when exactly did Mr Webb start bankrolling the SMF and by how much? What a pity SMF director Mr Kirkup won’t say now.
19. There’s no suggestion that Mr Webb has done anything wrong. As it happens, I support the aims of the APPG and Clean Up Gambling (see blog passim).
20. I didn’t ask Mr Webb or Dr Noyes for comment. That’s because the transparency and accountability of the SMF only are under examination. The thinktank is found wanting on both scores in relation to the money it‘s received from Mr Webb.