A London-based lobbying firm closely associated with the Labour Party is facing mounting scrutiny after details emerged suggesting it is offering corporate sponsors privileged access to senior government figures in exchange for payments running into tens of thousands of pounds.

According to documents reviewed by openDemocracy, businesses willing to pay up to £30,000 are being offered direct engagement with ministers, MPs, and senior advisers to Prime Minister Keir Starmer as part of a high-profile technology policy event scheduled to take place in Westminster this summer. The revelations have reignited long-standing concerns about “cash-for-access” politics and the growing influence of wealthy corporate interests over public policymaking in the UK.

The event at the centre of the controversy is the Future of Tech Summit, due to be held in July at County Hall, one of the most prestigious conference venues in central London. The half-day gathering is being coordinated by Arden Strategies, a lobbying and advisory firm founded by former Labour cabinet minister Jim Murphy, in partnership with the Startup Coalition, a tech industry lobbying group.

Promotional material circulated privately to lobbying agencies and in-house public affairs teams describes the summit as a platform that will “bring together the brightest minds in policy, business and technology” to help shape a long-term strategy for the UK’s role in the global technology sector. The agenda includes panel discussions, private roundtables, a “fireside chat” with the government’s technology secretary, and a drinks reception.

However, critics argue that the substance of the event matters less than the way access to political decision-makers is being structured, packaged, and priced.

At the heart of the controversy is atiered sponsorship model outlined in the brochure. Companies are invited to choose between several sponsorship levels, each offering escalating degrees of proximity to policymakers.

For £7,500, a sponsor can co-host a closed-door roundtable lasting up to 90 minutes with what is described as a “VIP guest.” Based on similar events held last year, these guests are likely to be MPs with direct influence over technology and artificial intelligence policy, including members of parliamentary groups closely aligned with Labour’s leadership.

The next tier, priced at £20,000, allows a corporate representative to take part in – or even introduce – one of the summit’s main panel discussions. While panel topics are formally undecided, the brochure suggests areas such as artificial intelligence regulation, cybersecurity, and geopolitical instability, all issues where corporate lobbying has significant commercial stakes.

The most expensive package, costing £30,000, includes sponsorship of the summit’s drinks reception. This option offers the sponsor a speaking slot, professional photographs with the technology secretary, and facilitated introductions to senior political figures. Sponsors paying £20,000 or more are also promised “stakeholder introductions,” a term widely understood in public affairs circles to mean direct, in-person introductions to ministers, MPs, or senior advisers.

Perhaps most strikingly, the summit will be followed by an exclusive post-conference dinner limited to 25 guests, described as a “VIP dinner with top advisers to the prime minister, the chancellor, and other senior tech policymakers.” Only three seats at this dinner appear to be available to sponsors, effectively placing a premium price on one of the most private forms of political access.

An FAQ section of the brochure anticipates potential concerns from sponsors about whether political attendance is assured. One question reads: “Will we be guaranteed a policymaker?” The response is unambiguous: “Yes.”

While such language may be common in commercial event marketing, it has alarmed transparency campaigners, who argue that it crosses a line by explicitly commodifying political access. The document also notes that pricing is negotiable, stating: “No, we are open to a conversation,” further reinforcing perceptions that access is being treated as a tradable asset rather than a public trust.

There is no immediate suggestion that the arrangements breach parliamentary rules. Ministers are required to declare attendance at events, and such declarations are expected to be made. However, experts point out that most interactions at events like this – informal conversations, introductions, dinners, and networking – fall outside the scope of existing lobbying regulation and transparency requirements.

This regulatory gap has long been criticised by anti-corruption organisations, who argue that it allows powerful interests to shape policy away from public scrutiny.

Kamila Kingstone, a senior campaigner at Spotlight on Corruption, described the arrangement as “hugely problematic.”

“When access to politicians is packaged and priced, it reinforces the idea that wealth determines influence,” she said. “This doesn’t just damage public trust – it risks skewing policy outcomes in favour of corporate interests, particularly in sectors like technology where regulatory decisions have enormous economic consequences.”

Kingstone called on the government’s newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to launch a formal review into cash-for-access schemes, examining who is selling access, who is buying it, and how such practices affect decision-making.

The controversy is particularly sensitive given the policy areas involved. Artificial intelligence, data protection, competition law, and online safety are among the most consequential regulatory debates currently facing the UK. Decisions taken in these areas will shape not only the digital economy but also civil liberties, national security, and democratic accountability.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, warned that the tech industry has already enjoyed disproportionate influence over UK governments of all political stripes.

“In recent years, technology companies have successfully lobbied to slow or weaken AI regulation, dilute data protection standards, and undermine competition policy,” he said. “Meanwhile, civil society voices and the general public struggle to be heard. Promising paid access to policymakers only deepens that imbalance.”

Arden Strategies is no stranger to controversy. Founded and led by Jim Murphy, who previously served as a Labour cabinet minister, the firm has built a reputation for its close connections to Labour’s leadership, particularly in the period leading up to the 2024 general election.

In the months before that election, Arden reportedly organised numerous private meetings introducing corporate clients to members of Labour’s shadow cabinet. The firm also sponsored fundraising events for dozens of prospective Labour MPs. Although most of those donations were technically legal, they exploited a loophole that allowed multiple contributions to fall just below the threshold for mandatory declaration.

Following Labour’s election victory, Arden faced criticism for arranging access to senior Treasury figures for clients, including at least one adviser who later stepped down amid scrutiny.

Henry Newman, a former adviser to Conservative ministers, previously criticised such practices, stating that government meetings should not be curated by lobbying firms.

“If we had a government meeting, we would always choose the cast list ourselves,” he said at the time. “We wouldn’t ask a lobbying firm to do it.”

Beyond the immediate controversy, the episode raises deeper questions about the structure of political influence in modern Britain. While lobbying is a legitimate part of democratic systems, critics argue that the current framework overwhelmingly favours those with financial resources, professional lobbyists, and insider connections.

For ordinary citizens, small businesses, and civil society groups, the idea of paying tens of thousands of pounds for a private dinner with government advisers is unthinkable. Yet it is precisely these voices that are often most affected by decisions on technology, data, and regulation.

As the UK government seeks to position itself as a global leader in technology and innovation, the manner in which policy is shaped – and who gets a seat at the table – is becoming an issue of growing public concern.

Whether the Future of Tech Summit will prompt regulatory reform or simply fade into the background remains to be seen. But for now, it has exposed once again the uncomfortable intersection of money, access, and power at the heart of British politics.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel