The Telegraph reports the failure of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons to give any details of how they spend more than half-a-million pounds of expenses, made up of a €50,424 (£45,382) annual general expenditure allowance, €4,148 (£3,733) annual travel allowance and a €210,480 (£189,432) a year staffing allowance – this despite not having “any staffers accredited to work” in Brussels or Strasbourg according to the European parliament.

On Griffin’s official MEP website, on the completely blank “Accounts & Expenses” page, it says only:

“All accounts and expenses will be published on this page for complete transparency as soon as they become available.”

While Brons responds to the Telegraph by claiming, repeatedly, that there is “no obligation” for him to justify his expenses to anyone, despite having campaigned for election on an anti-sleaze platform, criticising the established parties for having their “snouts in the trough”. Brons wrote:

“…The amounts received in both subsistence and travel are on public record and I am not under any obligation to make any other return…I have not been asked to make any return but I have the exact figures if I am asked to do so…There is no obligation for me to make any other return…There is no requirement to make any other return…”

Domestically, Left Foot Forward has learnt that the Electoral Commission have placed the BNP “under review” over their failure to submit their accounts on time, initially reported by Left Foot Forward in January. A spokesman today said:

“They’re a case under review. This is not yet a full-blown investigation, this is the last stage before an investigation. If they are to be fully investigated, this will be announced.”

“I believe that secret corporate lobbying, like the expenses scandal, goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics” – so said David Cameron, just last month, in a call for the “light of transparency” to be shone on lobbying, adding: “We don’t know who is meeting whom. We don’t know whether any favours are being exchanged. We don’t know which outside interests are wielding unhealthy influence.”

Yet, as the Observer reveals this weekend, some of his party’s current crop of prospective MPs are hiding their links to the lobbying industry from voters. Today, 38 Degrees, has teamed up with the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency to launch a campaign for lobbying transparency – targeting the prospective MPs revealed in the Observer investigation.

Take Cameron’s former press secretary, George Eustice, standing in the Cornish three-way marginal of Camborne and Redruth. Mr Eustice’s campaign website talks in detail about his parents’ farm (in his constituency), which has “a farm shop providing quality local produce” and “a herd of British Lop pigs – a rare breed native to Cornwall”.

It fails to mention, however, his current job as a lobbyist for a large consultancy that lobbies for, among others, supermarket giants Tesco and Morrisons. “There are lots of things that you don’t mention,” he says by way of explanation.

Another is Priti Patel, Conservative party candidate for the notionally Tory seat of Witham in Essex. She claims that her experience outside politics means she has “an innate understanding about the issues faced by small businesses”. Like Mr Eustice, she doesn’t disclose that her current employer is the UK’s leading public affairs (aka lobbying) firm, where her clients include a bankers’ lobby group.

Parliamentary candidates working as lobbyists aren’t confined to the Conservative party, but they do make up the majority. Lobbying firms hire parliamentary hopefuls not only to open doors now, but also to secure a direct line to any future government. It makes sense then that Conservative candidates would be more sought after than their rivals. Ms Patel, for example, is described by her employers as “a great hire… powerfully connected within Cameron’s Conservatives”.

The issue of secretive lobbying among Tories isn’t just confined to Parliamentary candidates either. Conservative peers Lords Bell and Chadlington both head up lobbying firms that refuse to disclose their clients. Lord Bell’s firm, Bell Pottinger Public Affairs, says the public has “no right to know” who it is lobbying for. Lord Chadlington’s firm, Quiller, puts it rather more politely; “we understand the importance of discretion,” it says.

Then there are the many former MPs that now work in the influence industry, who still have access to the House of Commons, as the Sunday Times revealed last weekend. Again, the majority of them are ex-Conservative MPs. Put in this light, Mr Cameron’s pledge last month to be the party that “sorts all this out”, makes sense. Secretive lobbying, at the moment, is predominantly a Conservative affair.

What neither of the main parties has done though is to support the one concrete solution to an opaque influence industry: a compulsory register of lobbyists. This would require all lobbyists to make public who they are, who they are lobbying for and which areas of public life they are seeking to influence. A register would provide the much needed public scrutiny of who has the ear of this or any future government.

All of which is why 38 Degrees is supporting the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency’s campaign for a compulsory register. Take action now by emailing your parliamentary candidate, whether they’re involved in lobbying or not, to press them to pledge their support for new transparency rules for lobbyists.

Watch it:

Last night, William Hague admitted on the Radio 4’s The World Tonight that he “found out in the last few months about Ashcroft”. It is unclear whether this was before or after he told Andrew Marr that Ashcroft “fulfils the obligations that were imposed on him” in November last year.

As covered on this blog yesterday, Hague also told Jeremy Paxman in June, just nine months ago, that “I have no reason to think he hasn’t complied”.

UPDATE 16.05

The Guardian has five questions for the Conservatives on the Ashcroft affair including “When exactly did [William Hague] discover your party’s deputy chairman was a non-dom?”

The exchange of letters in 1999 between Tony Blair and William Hague, reproduced in this morning’s Guardian, outline the then-Tory leaders’ assurances about Michael Ashcroft:

“He is, however, committed to becoming resident by the next financial year in order properly to fulfil his responsibilities in the House of Lords. This decision will cost him (and benefit the Treasury) tens of millions a year in tax yet he considers it worthwhile.”

But in June 2009, William Hague faced 17 questions from Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight about Lord Ashcroft including:

PAXMAN: Just one final point, in the current climate of suspicion about politics your deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft, a man whose peerage you lobbied for, saying that he would become resident in Britain for tax purposes, can you just tell us, is he resident in Britain for tax purposes now?

HAGUE: I’ve no reason to think that he’s not complied with the commitments that he gave …

PAXMAN: Have you asked him directly?

HAGUE: I have discussed it with him and I have no reason to think he hasn’t complied

Watch it:

• Join the facebook group and sign the petition demanding Lord Ashcroft pays back the missing millions

“He’s avoided vast sums in a non-dom tax dodge. Anyone who wants to pass laws about tax in this country should pay the full taxes and not hide behind the special offshore status of non-doms.”

The petition says:

“We, the undersigned, call on Lord Ashcroft to pay to the UK exchequer the tax for which he would have been liable had he not decided to be non-domiciled in the UK for tax purposes since 2000, so that it can be spent on the NHS, schools, police and other front line services.

“Commentators estimate that this sum could be as much as £127 million.”

It follows the highly-successful Facebook group, which now has more than 1,250 members.

This is how the Mirror calculated the £127 million figure:

“Lord Ashcroft’s fortune is estimated at £1,100 million by the Sunday Times Rich List.

“A 5% annual return is £55m. If he kept 80% offshore taxpayers would miss income from £44m.
He can split his tax between capital gains and income tax.

“At 18%, capital gains tax on £22m = £3.96m, plus 40% income tax on £22m = £8.8m. That’s £12.76m a year or £127.6m in 10 years.”

Earlier today, Left Foot Forward reported the huge influence Ashcroft has over the Tory party, and the potential effect he may have on the election. Ashcroft’s money pays for 78% of Tory spending in marginals, far higher than the 2% of donations the Tories have claimed.

UPDATE 2:40

John Slinger, who set up the petition, has just told Left Foot Forward:

“The Tories and Lord Ahscroft may think that they can put this story to bed with a belated Damascan conversion to transparency, but it won’t wash. I set up this petition because I hope that the British public will think long and hard about what the Ashcroft affair says about the modern Tories.

“Ordinary people are struggling in the current economic circumstances, paying their taxes and often relying on public services such as the NHS to improve their life chances.

“Yet the Tories have as their Deputy Chairman a billionaire who chooses to pay only a fraction of his taxes in this country yet seeks to influence the outcome of the next election. It may be legal, but it’s a disgrace.”

Joseph spent £900 of charitable donations on ball gowns while Mayor of Brent. She has been suspended from Brent Council for six months but Johnson has so far refused to condemn, much less dismiss her.

Today’s Evening Standard reports that:

“A judge said there was ‘more than a possibility’ that she [Joseph] had deprived two children’s charities, the Down’s Syndrome Association and Shooting Star, of extra income by spending the donations of £400 and £500 on dresses.

“A Brent council investigation found that Ms Joseph encouraged two businesses — a butcher and a car dealer — to sponsor the dresses she wore to two mayoral charity balls.

“The judge added that Ms Joseph had shown a ‘repeated lack of credibility’ and that it would be wrong to expect her to serve as a borough mayor again ‘given the disrepute that she has caused to the office’. He ordered her to serve the remainder of her six-month suspension immediately.”

Shadow communities secretary Caroline Spelman has previously praised Joseph as a woman of “total integrity, honesty and courage”, welcoming her into the Tory party after her defection from Labour.

This is just the latest in a series of scandals to rock City Hall since Johnson came to power, and follows allegations against key advisers of racism, expenses swindling and financial misconduct, which Left Foot Forward has explored previously.

In voting against the Domenici report on “Promoting Good Governance in Tax Matters 2009/2174(INI)”, Cameron’s MEPs sought to prevent the automatic exchange of tax information across borders.

The motion, however, was passed overwhelmingly – 553:93 (pp. 43-44).

The only opposition came from Cameron’s European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, UKIP’s Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group, the Non-Inscrits (NI) - which includes the BNP’s Nick Griffin - nine members of the European People’s Party (EPP) group and a lone Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) MEP, Robert Goebbels.

The overall report on good governance, again opposed by Cameron’s MEP’s and their allies, was passed 554:46 (pp. 55-56).

In addition to cracking down on tax dodgers the report seeks to:

• Develop a co-ordinated strategy to improve the fight against fiscal fraud;

• Improve international cooperation within the EU and at international level in order to ensure that it is effective;

• Clamp down on multinational companies’ ability to make extensive use of tax havens and offshore centres as part of their tax avoidance strategies;

• Take decisive, effective and consistent action to deal with tax havens;

• Put an end to the use of artificial legal persons as a way to avoid taxation;

• Deal with the problem of bank secrecy, enabling the automatic exchange of information in all circumstances;

• Require companies to disclose in their annual accounts, on a country-by-country basis, accounting information relating to tax havens;

• Avoid the creation of further legal loopholes open to abuse; and

• Ensure consistency in the implementation at EU and international level of standards in the areas of prudential supervision, taxation and money laundering and counterterrorism.

As well as voting against them in yesterday’s full plenerary session, Cameron’s MEPs had earlier sought to water down the above proposals in committee.

The speech was expected to focus on the future of higher education but instead became a vitriolic and highly-personalised diatribe against Gordon Brown with a supplementary rhetorical attack on the lobbying world:

“[Lobbying] has tainted our politics for too long.

“In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism. So we must be the party that sorts all this out. Today it is a £2bn industry that has a huge presence in parliament.”

But is Cameron heeding his own words?

Last year, The Times discovered that the lobbying and PR world is as strong as ever within the Conservative party, not only influencing and shaping the views of prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs), but even going one step further – putting them on the payroll.

The investigation revealed 28 Conservative PPCs in winnable seats are working as PR consultants or lobbyists for public affairs firms. Tellingly, 25 per cent of them were hired after securing their nominations.

Indeed, some of the PPCs don’t even know they’re lobbying. Priti Patel, formerly press spokeswoman to William Hague, and now working part-time at Weber Shandwick, told the Times:

“I don’t do lobbying. However, that does not mean I won’t phone up a Member of Parliament and say this client or that has an issue and would you be willing to speak with them?

“I will also give my clients a particular insight into the party.”

Ms Patel should note that the in most widely used dictionaries, the definition of lobbying is:

“To try to influence the thinking of legislators or other public officials for or against a specific cause”.

Unless she was merely arranging a heart to heart conversation for her clients, we’re talking about one thing, and one thing only – lobbying.

And today, in another exposé, The Times reports that Andrew MacKay, who is standing down at the election over expense abuses, has joined a public affairs company. Mr MacKay, until recently a senior adviser of David Cameron, was last week ordered to pay back £31,193.00 by the Legg report.

He will be a “strategic adviser” to the lobbyists Burson-Marsteller – whose chief executive is Matt Carter, former general secretary of the Labour party. The company said it means they are now “uniquely placed to advise clients whatever the make-up of the new government after the election”.

The allegations have promoted a Labour party member from Edinburgh to report the First and Deputy First Ministers to the Scottish Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Stuart Allan.

Furthermore, the Parliament’s Corporate Body will investigate the matter to determine whether Parliamentary facilities have been used improperly for party political activity or gain.

Sir Alistair Graham, former Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life has said:

“It’s very important for public officials to keep their public duties quite separate from their party political fundraising activities … at first glance it looks like a clear breach of the rules.”

In an attempt to take the initiative, Alex Salmond has now written to the Parliament’s Officer, Alex Fergusson, to make clear that he would cancel any outstanding lunches until the Corporate Body had reported. He continued:

“I have identified four such lunches, and Nicola Sturgeon has identified one lunch and a tour – since none of them have taken place, there is therefore no difficulty in the Corporate Body considering the issue as a matter of principle. Nor indeed have any of the donations been given.

“Many other members will be in a similar position, and what I propose is that the Corporate Body, at its meeting on Wednesday, consider issuing interim advice that charity lunches can continue until such time as the whole matter can be fully discussed and comprehensive new advice issued to members.”

The First Minister’s moves, however, have not served to dampen criticism from opposition parties.

In what is described as an exclusive, The Herald’s Political Editor, Brian Currie, quotes what he says is as a source close to former Labour First Minister, Jack McConnell, as saying:

“The more serious charge is cash for ministerial access and private meetings.

“Ministers should not auction off their diary time to the highest bidder. They have to adhere to the highest standards to maintain the integrity of the office.”

The developments come just over two years since allegations of sleaze were made over how the Scottish Government handled a planning application for a golf resort by US billionaire and presenter of The Apprentice Donald Trump.

Similarly, on Wednesday, Left Foot Forward reported concerns by Scotland’s Information Commissioner over the Scottish Government’s handling of Freedom of Information requests, which he said “threatens to undermine the right-to- know regime”.

Whilst we await a report from the Parliament’s corporate body on the matter, Mr Salmond must surely understand how the events discussed at length in the Scottish media look to the world outside the First Minister’s Official residence at Bute House.

Scotland’s Corporate Body and standards watchdogs will have to ensure that any action that might be required is taken quickly to ensure Holyrood does not become embroiled in the sort of mess that many in Westminster have found themselves in.

Johnson writes:

“Mandy and his entourage, of course, were flying sharp end; and as we struggled on down the aisle they subjected us to a certain amount of jocular raillery. They would send us some food, they scoffed, and perhaps a glass of champagne.

“In a spirit of glorious self-righteousness, we shouted back over our shoulders that this was the difference between Labour and Tories. Ours, I bragged, was the approach that the recession-battered public wanted to see. We were the ones who were being frugal with taxpayers’ money.”

Was Boris really annoyed about the additional expense the taxpayer would incur? Or the insult that being forced to accept a lower status during his 100 minute flight to Switzerland.

Never mind that Lord Mandelson denied this morning that the plane had first class, is this the same Boris Johnson that spent more than £4,500 of public money on taxis – including one bill for £237, during his first year in office?

Figures released in June 2009 revealed Johnson’s taxi claimed fares of more than £100 between May 2008 and May 2009. The receipts he submitted included one for £237.50 for a 7.5 mile journey across London – at £31 a mile. Other claims included a £99.50 return taxi from City Hall to Elephant and Castle, which are approximately a mile apart. And another expenses claim included a £99.75 cab from the Red Lion pub in Westminster to the City and a £101.83 return cab from City Hall to the Stock Exchange, just 2.4 miles away. There were many more examples of Boris’ taxi habits and how he is “being frugal with taxpayers’ money.” It is also worth noting that Mayor Johnson can travel for free on the tube.

He closes his opinion piece with this statement:

“The servants of the people should travel with the people.”

Quite.

Our guest writer is Peter Carrol