Professional body rejects complaint about Senedd candidate who doubles as a lobbyist

Martin Shipton

A complaint that a Plaid Cymru Senedd candidate had a conflict of interest when she appeared at a “meet the candidates” event in her capacity as the director of a lobbying firm has been rejected by the professional body for lobbyists.

But concerns have as a result been raised about the robustness of the body’s ethical policies.

In September 2025 Plaid Cymru was criticised for participating in a networking event organised by the lobbying firm that bought and rebranded Deryn, one of whose directors is Nerys Evans, a Plaid Senedd candidate.

The ‘Meet the Candidates’ event took place yards from the Senedd at the Wales Millennium Centre (WMC) in Cardiff Bay,

It was run by Cavendish Cymru, and marketed to businesses and organisations as an opportunity to rub shoulders with Plaid politicians who may have a role in the Welsh Government after the May 2026 Senedd election.

Ms Evans, a former Plaid Cymru Assembly Member, is hoping to make a political comeback, and will be the party’s number two candidate in the Sir Gaerfyrddin super-constituency, covering the whole of Carmarthenshire. She is also a director of Cavendish Cymru.

Deryn was taken over by London-based Cavendish Communications in January 2025, but Ms Evans and Ms Owens stayed on as directors of the company’s Welsh operation.

The WMC event coincided with a Plaid Cymru summer school being held in the same building and most Plaid MSs were present, including party leader Rhun ap Iorwerth.

The Cavendish event was an opportunity for the lobbying company to sell its election package to potential clients and secure access to Plaid candidates for existing clients. Those present were addressed from the podium by Nerys Evans.

Cavendish posted on social media a video shot outside the Wales Millennium Centre.

The narrator said: “Cavendish Cymru are here at the brilliant Wales Millennium Centre today for our ‘Meet The Candidates’ event with Plaid Cymru. We’ve got a load of Plaid Cymru candidates here today from across Wales, engaging directly with businesses and organisations about what a Plaid Cymru government after May 2026 might mean to them.

“Opinion polls are projecting that Plaid Cymru are well in the race to be leading the next Welsh government and there will be implications for businesses and oirganisations not just in Wales but across the UK.Cavendish Cymru will be here to support you from now until election day with all the data, the news, the insights of the campaign. So get in touch with us today and find out how we can help.”

‘Influence’

A written message was displayed at the end of the video, stating: “Cavendish: Insight. Influence. Creativity.”

Transparency campaigner John McAllister complained to Cavendish’s professional body, the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA) that Ms Evans had a conflict of interest because of her dual roles as a lobbyist and a Plaid Cymru candidate.

His complaint has now been rejected by a complaints panel of the PRCA, which ruled: “The complaint described the event as one involving Cavendish’s clients who, it complains, were given in effect preferential access to Plaid Cymru MSs and candidates.

“The panel considered that it was possible that a private event which sought to give clients an opportunity to influence government policy on specific topics by meeting relevant politicians might fall within the definition of public affairs within the Public Affairs (PA) code.

“However, this is clearly not what happened here. In effect the event was a marketing event for Cavendish held at Plaid Cymru’s request. Such events are common in the industry, for example, at party conferences or party business events and enable politicians to engage stakeholders.

“Cavendish have confirmed that the event referred to in the complaint was available to all members of the public and other interested parties via a publicly available online booking system. It was free of charge and Cavendish did not make any payment to those politicians who attended. There is nothing in the marketing material or the wider arrangements for the event that does not accord with this explanation about the purpose and impact of the event.

“On that basis, the activities complained of did not constitute an attempt to influence government in accordance with the scope of the PA Code. There is no evidence that Cavendish has brought the reputation of the public affairs and communications industry into disrepute.”

Explained

So far as Ms Evans’ personal involvement was concerned, the panel stated that Ms Evans had explained transparently to the attendees that she is a Director of Cavendish Cymru as well as a prospective Senedd candidate for Plaid Cymru.

The ruling said: “In the circumstances the panel did not find any evidence that Ms Evans had acted in a conflict of interest, which the rule is intended to prevent, and had transparently declared her respective roles.

“The panel also considered if the facts gave rise to any concerns about potential breaches of the wider Code of Conduct by Ms Evans and decided that there were not.

“For these reasons, the panel concluded that the conduct complained involving both Cavendish and Ms Evans is not capable of amounting to a breach of the PA Code (or Code of Conduct) and will not therefore refer it to investigation.

“The panel also considered if the facts gave rise to any concerns about potential breaches of the wider Code of Conduct by Cavendish and decided that there were not.”

However, Mr McAllister stated: I note that the Standards Committee has decided not to refer the matter for investigation on the basis that the conduct described was not capable of amounting to a breach of the Public Affairs Code.

‘Reasoning’

“While I respect the Panel’s role and acknowledge that its screening decision is final under the PRCA’s procedures, I remain concerned by the implications of the reasoning set out in the decision.

“In essence, the PRCA has concluded that a lobbying firm sponsoring and organising an event to facilitate engagement between businesses and political candidates during an election cycle does not fall within the scope of “public affairs activity” for the purposes of the Code, provided it is characterised as a marketing or networking event and is publicly advertised.

“That interpretation raises broader questions about whether the current self-regulatory framework is adequately equipped to address perceived conflicts of interest, particularly in smaller political systems such as Wales, where professional, political and commercial networks are closely intertwined.

“This case illustrates a gap between public expectations of ethical conduct and the limits of what the PRCA’s Code is currently designed to regulate. Whatever one’s view of the specific facts, it is legitimate to ask whether existing rules are sufficiently robust to command public confidence in the integrity of lobbying and public affairs activity during election periods.

“My intention in bringing this complaint was to seek clarity on professional standards in circumstances that many reasonable observers might find troubling. I hope this episode prompts wider reflection about transparency, conflicts of interest, and the adequacy of voluntary regulation in this area.”