Westminster Accounts: Following the money

Published

3 years ago

January 8, 2023

admin

Without greater transparency, money risks influencing our politics in the dark, it’s time to check who is paying our politicians and to ask why.

More than £183m has flowed into the British political system during this Parliament, straight from wealthy individuals or companies, and into the bank accounts of political parties, all-party parliamentary groups, and the campaign funds and constituencies of government ministers and MPs from all political parties.

Whilst the UK ranks towards the bottom of global corruption indexes, the way that information about MPs’ outside earnings and who is ultimately funding our politics is published has – for far too long – hindered understanding.

For all the claims of transparency, it’s been very hard to see what’s going on. Whether through default or design, records of financial transactions from donors and companies to politicians are spread across different websites and platforms, different registers, disclosures and databases, some online, some in print and often published in formats that can’t be compared or analysed easily.

The muddle is misleading; concealment by confusion. Its apparent acceptance within Westminster over so many years has resulted in outside earnings, lobbying efforts, paid access and influence-peddling are hard to find, difficult to trace, and easier than they should be to obfuscate.

We believe that has to change. As a voter, checking who is paying and funding your MP should not be laborious and easy to misinterpret. Money talks, and it should be simple and straightforward to check who has any sort of financial relationship with our politicians.

So today, we are helping every voter in the country to answer a series of simple questions: how much do MPs earn outside of their taxpayer-funded salary and from where, which businesses and individuals are donating to MPs and parties to further their political causes and by how much, and how do businesses and other interest groups use Parliament to further their agendas.

Sky News has partnered with Tortoise Media to build an interactive and searchable online tool to show how money flows in the UK’s political system, and to ask who is benefiting.

The Westminster Accounts will be freely available to all on a website and app and pulls in data from public sources but also adds new ways for everyone to search via an MP’s name or a voter’s postcode, which are currently not possible using Parliament’s own platforms.

For the first time, this allows us to do something MPs may find uncomfortable: create leader boards and league tables, showing where the largest sums flow from and to.

Who has received the most money in earnings in this Parliament? Which donors give to individual MPs as well as parties? Which companies and people have donated the most and which MPs are the beneficiaries. And what benefits are provided to all party parliamentary groups – informal networks of MPs often supported financially by companies and countries seeking to forward an agenda.

This is what the tool shines a light on: the Westminster Accounts tool not only organises this data, it maps it – making connections we haven’t been able to make before.

The need for greater transparency is urgent. In recent years, Westminster has felt as if it is mired in a never-ending debate over lobbying and the influence of outside income.

Concerns over MPs’ second jobs and the awarding of government contracts during the pandemic have sparked a growing debate about the priorities of our MPs, their susceptibility to outside offers of pay, gifts and perks, and the risk that outside interests take precedent over the jobs for which they were elected.

We believe that as journalists our role is to provide our readers, viewers and listeners with impartial insight and information. Voters should be able to find, in one place, the details of any financial contributions to MPs.

Our research suggests that more than £17m has been earned by MPs through second jobs in this Parliament alone. It’s far from evenly spread: just 36 MPs having each made £100,000 or more in that time.

We now know the names of the largest individual donors to MPs across all political parties. Whilst some are well known businesses and trades unions, others are companies with no public profiles or obvious purpose, sometimes they are not even based in the UK.

We are committed to maintaining and improving the Westminster Accounts for the rest of this Parliament.

The data in the Westminster Accounts has mostly been submitted by MPs, their staffers, political parties and Parliamentary groups.

Of course, in collecting and verifying it, we found plenty of overlaps, mismatches and errors. If MPs feel the Westminster Accounts don’t do justice to their earnings or expenses, we’ll act to correct and clarify the data promptly.

Our hope is that, in the process, MPs are encouraged to be not just performatively transparent, but genuinely informative about how much money they receive and from whom. In the process, all of our understanding of finance and influence in politics will be improved.

We hope that the Westminster Accounts is a tool that’s not just used by all other newsrooms, but bloggers and journalists, students and academics and, of course, voters across the UK. We hope it will enable better understanding of our politics and, with it, build trust in our democracy.

To be clear, our investigation focuses solely on the flow of money into Westminster, not on detailing the time that many MPs give generously outside of Parliament to work for charities, in the NHS, or in the armed forces. Nobody wants to cut MPs off from the outside world. We do, though, want to understand how people try to inform and influence our politics.

As voters, we get our say at the ballot box every 4 or 5 years in a normal political cycle, but if a business or a donor is writing a cheque to an MP every few months, what does that donor think they are getting for the cash and might it have undue influence over how the MP makes decisions in subjects that their donors cares about?

The Institute for Government recently asked if following recent ethics scandals, politicians are willing to make the changes necessary to rebuild standards in public life.

The Westminster Accounts is intended to contribute to that change. It makes information about the financial workings of Westminster accessible to all.

UK

Why Andrew photo in Epstein files is deeply awkward for Royal Family

Published

4 hours ago

December 23, 2025

admin

Why Andrew photo in Epstein files is deeply awkward for Royal Family

A Sandringham photograph of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the Epstein files has resurfaced at a particularly uncomfortable moment for the Royal Family, just days before they gather at the estate for Christmas.

Andrew is set to move to the King’s private Norfolk estate in the next few months, after he was officially stripped of his titles, honours, and his large home on the Windsor estate.

The picture was among the thousands of Epstein files by the US Department of Justice.

It shows Andrew lying across the laps of several women whose faces have been redacted.

Looking on and laughing is Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s former girlfriend.

The photo was taken in the stately saloon room at Sandringham House in Norfolk.

Although the image is undated, we know Andrew organised a shooting weekend in 2000 for Ghislaine’s birthday.

It is a picture of intimate access to the inner royal sanctum.

Sandringham is a private royal retreat, and no one is invited here by chance.

Royal biographer, Andrew Lownie, said royal residences were used as “party places” by Andrew.

“Epstein and Ghislaine took advantage of this,” he said. “They went to Balmoral, Sandringham and Windsor … This showed people just how close they were to the Royal Family.”

There’s no suggestion the wider family knew Epstein, but the timing is deeply awkward. This week Sandringham will once again host the Royal Family’s traditional Christmas gathering.

And the King will deliver his Christmas message to the country and Commonwealth.

Andrew isn’t invited to Sandringham and will be spending Christmas elsewhere. The Norfolk estate will soon become his new home; it’s understood the move will happen in the first quarter of next year.

For years, Andrew let Epstein and Maxwell into his privileged world.

They were guests at the 18th birthday party of his daughter, Princess Beatrice.

Another photo released in the files shows Andrew, Epstein and Maxwell at Royal Ascot, a firm fixture in the royal calendar.

Epstein and his former girlfriend are also photographed at another shooting party, possibly at Balmoral.

We know the pair were once guests at the Scottish castle, pictured in the same lodge loved by the late Queen.

Mr Lownie said the pair enjoyed “extraordinary” access.

“It just shows how close Andrew was to them… for them to be socialising in these very private residences,” he added.

Andrew’s association with Epstein has cost him his royal roles, titles, and his beloved home.

He has always strongly denied any wrongdoing.

The images and documents released and revealed in the Epstein files contain graphic and traumatic content.

It is harrowing and retraumatising for Epstein’s victims.

And what continues to shock – is how a man like Jeffrey Epstein had proximity to the Royal Family. And why Andrew let it happen and stayed friends with him.

UK

Man due in court charged with 56 sexual offences against ex-wife – as five other men also charged

Published

4 hours ago

December 23, 2025

admin

Man due in court charged with 56 sexual offences against ex-wife - as five other men also charged

A man is due in court charged – alongside five other men – with carrying out sexual offences against his now former wife over a 13-year period.

Philip Young, 49, formerly of Swindon, has been charged with 56 sexual offences, including multiple counts of rape, against Joanne Young, 48, Wiltshire Police said.

He is also charged with administering a substance with the intent to stupefy or overpower to allow sexual activity, as well as voyeurism, possession of indecent images of children and possession of extreme images.

Five other men have also been charged with sexual offences against Ms Young, who police say has waived her automatic legal right to anonymity.

All six men will appear at Swindon Magistrates Court today, Wiltshire Police said.

The other men are Norman Macksoni, 47, of Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire. He is a black British national and has been charged with one count of rape and possession of extreme images.

Dean Hamilton, 47, of no fixed abode. He is a white British national and has been charged with one count of rape and sexual assault by penetration and two counts of sexual touching.

Conner Sanderson Doyle, 31, of Swindon. He is a white British national and has been charged with sexual assault by penetration and sexual touching

Richard Wilkins, 61, of Swindon. He is a white British national and has been charged with one count of rape and sexual touching

Mohammed Hassan, 37, of Swindon. He is a British Asian male and has been charged with sexual touching.

Police say the offences took place between 2010 and 2023.

Geoff Smith, detective superintendent for Wiltshire Police, said: “This is a significant update in what is a complex and extensive investigation.

“The victim in this case, Joanne, has taken the decision to waive her automatic legal right to anonymity.

“She has been supported by specially trained officers from the beginning of the process and she has made the decision following multiple discussions with officers and support services.”

People who allege they are victims of rape have been automatically entitled to lifelong anonymity since the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act was passed in 1976.

This has since been extended to certain other sexual offences, though victims can waive the protection if they wish.

UK

Reeves’s budget tax rises ‘a pub destroyer’, say landlords

Published

7 hours ago

December 23, 2025

admin

Reeves's budget tax rises 'a pub destroyer', say landlords

A millionaires’ playground, Poole in Dorset boasts some of the most expensive properties in the UK, and has been called Britain’s Palm Beach.

Away from the yachts and the mansions of Sandbanks, however, Poole is also a beer drinkers’ paradise, with 58 pubs in the parliamentary constituency alone.

But now many of Dorset’s pub landlords have joined a bitter backlash against rises in business rates of up to £30,000 in Rachel Reeves’s November budget.

Across the UK, it is claimed up to 1,000 publicans have even banned Labour MPs from their pubs, after the chancellor axed a 40% rates discount, introduced during COVID, from next April.

The row over the rises, brewing since the budget, came to a head in a clash between Kemi Badenoch and Sir Keir Starmer in the final Prime Minister’s Questions of 2025.

“He gave his word that he would help pubs,” said the Tory leader.

“Yet they face a 15% rise in business rates because of his budget. Will he be honest and admit that his taxes are forcing pubs to close?”

The PM replied that the temporary relief introduced during COVID – a scheme the Conservatives put in place and Labour supported, he said – had come to an end.

“But it was always a temporary scheme coming to an end,” he said.

“We have now put in place a £4bn transitional relief.”

But in the Barking Cat Ale House in Poole, facing an increase in business rates of nearly £9,000 a year, the father and son co-landlords fear the rises could mean last orders for many pubs.

“We’re sort of in the average area at 157%, but we’ve got a lot of local pubs that are increasing by 600%, and another one by 800%,” Ambrose senior, Mark, told Sky News.

“It’s a pub destroyer. Pubs can’t survive these kinds of increases. It’s not viable. Most pubs are just about scraping by anyway. If you add these massive increases your profit margins are wiped out.

“We struggle as it is. You can’t have that kind of increase and expect businesses to succeed.

“Fortunately, the customers understand. But they still don’t want to have to spend an extra 30 or 50 pence a pint.”

Son Michael added: “It’s all back to front. It’s really these bigger pub companies and supermarkets that need to be facing increased taxes. We can’t handle them. They can.”

Michelle Smith, landlady of the Poole Arms, the oldest pub on the town’s quay, dating back to 1635, said: “Our rates per value is due to go up £9,000 in April, so it’s quite a deal.”

“And we had a rates increase just gone as well,” she added. “So our rates had already increased over £1,000 a month last April. So another hit is quite considerable really.

“Prices definitely have to go up with all the different price increases that we’ve got throughout: business rates, wage increases, the beer goes up from the breweries. Everything is going up.”

Backing the publicans, Neil Duncan-Jordan, who became Poole’s first ever Labour MP last year, has written to the chancellor demanding a rethink. He said he is prepared to vote against the tax rise in the Commons.

“They’ve got to listen,” he told Sky News.

“They’ve got to listen to the high street, to publicans, people who run social clubs and listen to problems that they’re facing and the impact that these changes have made.”

Mr Duncan-Jordan said he was prepared to support an amendment to the Finance Bill, which turns the budget into law and had its second reading in the Commons last week.

Despite being suspended for four months for rebelling against welfare cuts earlier this year, he said: “I was discussing this with some MPs just this morning and I’ll be happy to support those. Sometimes you just have to say what you think is right.”

As chancellor, Ms Reeves has regularly raised a glass to pubs and promised to protect them from rising costs.

But Sir Keir has faced the wrath of a publican before, when he was thrown out of a pub in Bath during COVID by an anti-lockdown landlord.

This time, without a U-turn by the chancellor on the business rates increases, pub landlords fear the government has them over a barrel.