The undisclosed public enquiry point for the betting and gaming APPG now possesses a parliamentary pass sponsored by chair

1. The all-party parliamentary group (“APPG”) on betting and gaming has failed for over a year to disclose its public enquiry point on the register of APPGs.
2. Yet the APPG rules are clear: each group must register “the name and details of a public enquiry point (if the Group has one)”.
3. The last update to list the public enquiry point – Steve Donoughue – was that dated 14 July 2021. (At date of publication the most recent register is as at 22 July 2022.)

Figure 1. Steve Donoughue is public enquiry point: betting and gaming APPG website at 30 August 2022

4. The betting and gaming APPG website, by contrast, shows Mr Donoughue as public enquiry point (screen shot in Figure 1). Press releases published on the website, too, confirm Mr Donoughue’s role as such (screen shot in Figure 2).

Figure 2. Press releases: betting and gaming APPG website at 30 August 2022

5. The parliament website retains the register of APPGs for 7 years. Thus there 2015 is the earliest year for which versions are still available – and those show Mr Donoughue as public enquiry point.
6. Mr Donoughue’s longstanding role with the APPG has recently changed in an important way, however. The register of interests of MPs’ staff reveals he now possesses a parliamentary pass – courtesy of Scott Benton, the MP for Blackpool South.
7. Tory Mr Benton is chair and registered contact of the APPG, having succeeded the infamous Laurence Robertson, Conservative MP for Tewkesbury (see 17 November 2020 post).
8. Mr Donoughue first appeared on the register of interests of MPs’ staff in the 27 May 2022 update. Under “Other Relevant Gainful Occupation, Employment, Gift or Benefit”, he discloses: “Management Consultant, http://www.gamblingconsultant.co.uk (licensing and compliance).”
9. Mr Donoughue is listed on the next update of the register of interests of MPs’ staff, as at 8 July 2022, which at date of publication is the latest one.
10. Nevertheless Mr Donoughue’s Gambling Consultant website previously advertised a range of services, including “government relations” and “strategic advice”, according to the Wayback Machine online archive.
11. In 2019, for example, there under “government relations” he boasted: “Our team includes associates with years of public affairs experience. We have advised members of Government, senior officials and members of Parliament. Our network is second to none and we can advise you on how best to build effective relationships in Westminster and Whitehall. (Please note we provide strategies only and do not arrange meetings with politicians or officials.)”
12. There is no mention of “government relations” on the current version of Mr Donoughue’s website, though.
13. Back in 2015, Mr Donoughue told The Guardian newspaper he was not a lobbyist, styling himself as a “strategic consultant”.
14. Oh, Mr Donoughue’s father, Labour peer Lord Donoughue, is vice-chair of the APPG. Cosy!
15. Given the lack of clarity, it is reasonable to ask why Mr Benton is sponsoring Mr Donoughue’s parliamentary pass – and what exactly the Gambling Consultant is up to in parliament.
16. There’s no suggestion that anyone has done anything illegal.
17. Mr Benton and Mr Donoughue didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Is the China Research Group softening its stance?

1. Two disclosures by separate MPs on the latest register of MPs’ financial interests (as at 8 August 2022) suggest the China Research Group (“CRG”) of Tory MPs could be softening its stance.
2. The China-sceptic CRG was established in April 2020 “to promote debate and fresh thinking about how Britain should respond to the rise of China”. Its chairs are Tom Tugendhat MP and Alicia Kearns MP.
3. On 15 June 2022, I revealed that Mr Tugendhat had recently accepted a £10k donation from InvestUK (Group) Ltd (“InvestUK”), a China-focused company behind an education bond for Chinese students in UK. What’s more, the donor company used an unauthorised financial services firm to promote its education bond.
4. In July 2022, Mr Tugendhat pocketed a further £6k in donations from InvestUK – this time “to support my campaign for leader of the Conservative Party”, according to the register of MPs’ financial interests.
5. The second disclosure is that made by Ms Kearns, in relation to the Great Britain-China Centre (“GBCC”), an executive non-departmental public body established by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 1974 to support UK-China relations (see previous post).
6. On 23 June 2022, Ms Kearns was appointed to the board of GBCC as a director.
7. Perhaps the CRG co-chairs are becoming less China-sceptic. If so, what does this mean for CRG?

Great Britain-China Centre accounts fail to disclose all transactions with related party All-Party Parliamentary China Group

1. The Great Britain-China Centre (“GBCC”) is an executive non-departmental public body established by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 1974 to support UK-China relations.
2. The latest accounts for GBCC, made up to 31 March 2021, identify the All-Party Parliamentary China Group (“APPCG”) as a related party. However, the accounts fail to disclose all transactions with APPCG. What’s more, the National Audit Office (“NAO”) audited the accounts.
3. Founded in 1997, APPCG bills itself as “parliament’s platform for discussion on all issues of importance to the bilateral UK-China relationship”.
4. GBCC and APPCG share a coordinator, Louisa Idel, who possesses a parliamentary pass and is sponsored by Richard Graham MP, APPCG chair.
5. The related-party transactions note in the GBCC accounts says: “The GBCC provided employee services to the APPCG and this was governed by a memorandum of understanding between GBCC and APPCG. The administration fee for employee services with the APPCG for 2020-21 amounted to £800 (2019-20: £890) and is recorded in other income.”
6. This creates the impression “the administration fee for employee services” was the only transaction between APPCG and GBCC. Why? Because it is the only transaction disclosed. Was it the only transaction?
7. Ms Idel confirmed in an email that “the administration fee for employee services” was the only transaction between APPCG and GBCC.
8. Separately, I asked GBCC for the memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) between GBCC and APPCG. GBCC duly provided the document (with redactions): https://dralexmay.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/appcg-gbcc-agreement-2022.pdf.
9. There para 4 states: “… the APPCG will be invoiced for 50 per cent of the total amount, plus an agreed handling fee of 5 per cent, to cover payroll and human resources support costs etc.”
10. Also, para 7 says: “The APPCG will pay GBCC quarterly in advance for the required total fee for that quarter, upon production of a GBCC invoice.”
11. In light of the MOU, I asked GBCC in an email the following question: Why does the related-party transactions note in the latest accounts for GBCC, made up to 31 March 2021, fail to disclose the transactions with APPCG set out in the MOU?
12. By reply, GBCC wrote: “The statutory accounts make a full disclosure of the charges made between GBCC and APPCG for the year to 31 March 2021.”
13. GBCC went on: “The agreement between the two parties is a joint hire agreement as stated in the first paragraph of the agreement. 50% of the employment costs belong to GBCC and 50% belong to APPCG. The invoicing mechanism is purely a financial recovery of APPCG’s liability. It is not a transaction that can nor should be disclosed in related party transactions. It is only the element of service between GBCC and APPCG that requires disclosure.”
14. GBCC finished: “The National Audit Office have audited related party transactions and were happy with the disclosure in the statutory accounts.”
15. By reply, I told Ms Idel I disagree with the reasoning in her last message.
16. What are related-party transactions? International Accounting Standards (“IAS”) 24, Related Party Disclosures, states: “A related-party transaction is a transfer of resources, services, or obligations between related parties, regardless of whether a price is charged.”
17. Thus, as I say, the related-party transactions note in the latest accounts for GBCC, made up to 31 March 2021, should disclose the transactions with APPCG set out in the MOU.
18. Ms Idel didn’t come back.
19. Meanwhile, is NAO, as GBCC says, really happy with the non-disclosure? I asked – but NAO didn’t respond to requests for comment.