Westminster Accounts: Following the money

Published

2 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

Feminists ‘feel braver about speaking out’ after gender ruling – but critics say it ‘stokes culture war’

Published

41 mins ago

April 17, 2025

admin

Feminists 'feel braver about speaking out' after gender ruling - but critics say it 'stokes culture war'

A former Labour MP who quit the party over Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership has welcomed the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman as a “victory for feminists”.

Rosie Duffield, now the independent MP for Canterbury, said the judgment helped resolve the “lack of clarity” that has existed in the politics around the issue “for years”.

She was speaking to Ali Fortescue on the Politics Hub on the same day the UK’s highest court delivered its verdict on one of the most contentious debates in politics.

Politics latest: MPs respond to Supreme Court ruling on gender

The judges were asked to rule on how “sex” is defined in the 2010 Equality Act – whether that means biological sex or “certificated” sex, as legally defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

Their unanimous decision was that the definition of a “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.

Asked what she made about comments by fellow independent MP John McDonnell – who said the court “failed to hear the voice of a single trans person” and that the decision “lacked humanity and fairness” as a result, she said: “This ruling doesn’t affect trans people in the slightest.

“It’s about women’s rights – women’s rights to single sex spaces, women’s rights, not to be discriminated against.

“It literally doesn’t change a single thing for trans rights and that lack of understanding from a senior politician about the law is a bit worrying, actually.”

However, Maggie Chapman, a Scottish Green MSP, disagreed with Ms Duffield and said she was “concerned” about the impact the ruling would have on trans people “and for the services and facilities they have been using and have had access to for decades now”.

“One of the grave concerns that we have with this ruling is that it will embolden people to challenge trans people who have every right to access services,” she said.

“We know that over the last few years… their [trans people’s] lives have become increasingly difficult, they have been blocked from accessing services they need.”

Delivering the ruling at the London court on Wednesday, Lord Hodge said: “But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.

“The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.

“This is the application of the principle of discrimination by association. Those statutory protections are available to transgender people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate.”

Asked whether she believed the judgment could “draw a line” under the culture war, Ms Chapman told Fortescue: “Today’s judgment only stokes that culture war further.”

And she said that while Lord Hodge was correct to say there were protections in law for trans people in the 2020 Equality Act, the judgment “doesn’t prevent things happening”.

“It may offer protections once bad things have happened, once harassment, once discrimination, once bigotry, once assaults have happened,” she said.

She also warned some groups “aren’t going to be satisfied with today’s ruling”.

“We know that there are individuals and there are groups who actually want to roll back even further – they want to get rid of the Gender Recognition Act from 2004,” she said.

“I think today’s ruling just emboldens those views.”

UK

Arsenal reach Champions League semi-final with dramatic win over Real Madrid

Published

41 mins ago

April 17, 2025

admin

Arsenal reach Champions League semi-final with dramatic win over Real Madrid

Arsenal have reached the semi-finals of the Champions League after a dramatic victory over holders Real Madrid in Spain.

The north London side, who became the first English team to win twice at the Bernabeu following their triumph there 19 years ago, will face Paris Saint-Germain in the last four after the French side beat Aston Villa on Tuesday.

It is the third time the Gunners have made it through to the semis of the top club football tournament in Europe, and the first since 2009.

Arsenal went into the second leg of their quarter-final clash on Wednesday with a 3-0 lead.

Backed by a raucous home crowd, Madrid tried to get off to a strong start and Kylian Mbappe scored after two minutes. However, the goal was disallowed for a clear offside.

Arsenal had the chance to go ahead in the 13th minute but winger Bukayo Saka missed a penalty.

The Spanish hosts were awarded a penalty of their own about 10 minutes later when Mbappe stumbled under pressure from Declan Rice in the box – but the decision was overturned by VAR.

Saka atoned for his tepid penalty as he chipped the ball past Madrid’s keeper Thibaut Courtois when put through on goal by auxiliary striker Mikel Merino in the 65th minute.

But Arsenal were pegged back just two minutes later as Vinicius Junior caught William Saliba dawdling on the ball and fired Real Madrid level.

Arsenal’s resolute defending kept the home side at bay until Gabriel Martinelli made a late break through the home side’s defence to put his side 2-1 ahead three minutes into injury time, as the Gunners made it 5-1 on aggregate.

‘We knew we were going to win’, says Rice

Arsenal midfielder Declan Rice has insisted his team are intent on winning the Champions League after their victory in Madrid.

Speaking to TNT Sport, Rice, who was named player of the match, said: “It’s such a special night, a historic one for the club. We have the objective of playing the best and winning the competition.

“We had so much belief and confidence from that first leg and came here to win the game. We knew we were going to suffer but we knew we were going to win. We had it in our minds, then we did it [in] real life. What a night.

“I knew when I signed, this club was on an upward trajectory. It’s been tough in the Premier League but in this competition we’ve done amazingly well.

“It’s PSG next, who are an amazing team.”

‘We have to be very proud of ourselves’, says Arteta

Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta told TNT Sport: “One of the best nights in my football career.

“We played against a team with the biggest history.

“To be able to win the tie in the manner we have done, I think we have to be very proud of ourselves.”

He added: “The history we have in this competition is so short. The third time in our history of what we have just done and we have to build on that. All this experience is going to help us, for sure.”

Real Madrid were seeking their third Champions League title in four seasons.

Mbappe twisted ankle

Their forward Mbappe twisted his right ankle during the game and was jeered by part of the crowd when his substitution was announced after a lacklustre performance.

The French star, who is still looking for his first Champions League title, was replaced by Brahim Diaz in the 75th minute following his injury. He was able to walk off the pitch by himself, but was limping slightly.

The other semi-final will be between Barcelona and Inter Milan.

The first legs are set to be played on 29 and 30 April, with the second legs on 6 and 7 May.

The final will be on 31 May.

UK

Labour’s policy on China under the spotlight

Published

41 mins ago

April 17, 2025

admin

Labour's policy on China under the spotlight

After a dramatic weekend with ministers passing legislation to wrest control of British Steel from its Chinese owners, Labour’s China policy is under the spotlight.

Sir Keir Starmer’s government came in, promising a “strategic and long term” relationship with Beijing, after years of “inconsistency” under the Conservatives.

David Lammy went on the first trip by a foreign secretary in six years. Sir Keir met Xi Jinping in the margins of the G20 in November and floated a UK-China visit.

Rachel Reeves went to the Chinese capital in January, saying her trip had secured £600m of growth for the UK economy.

Politics latest: Record number of migrants cross the English Channel

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds appeared to turn the tables this weekend, suggesting Chinese parent company Jingye had neglected or even sabotaged British Steel after buying it five years ago. He told Sky News he would not personally “bring a Chinese company into our steel sector”.

He changed his tune on Tuesday, while visiting Scunthorpe to oversee the delivery of a shipment of materials, saying the row was just with one company.

It’s now emerged he is expected to travel to China later this year, to restart a joint economic and trade commission which has been on ice since 2018.

But this is no return to the golden age of some years back.

Tensions in government over China may well emerge in the coming months – as the Treasury’s drive for investment and growth jars with concerns over security.

Ministers are discussing whether parts of the Chinese state should be designated a national security threat, under new rules on foreign influence, due to come in this summer.

Russia and Iran will be covered by the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme – but ministers are yet to say anything about China.

Applying it even in a limited way would be controversial with large companies and within government – seen as a barrier to doing business.

The Treasury’s view is that engagement with the world’s second largest economy is essential to economic growth.

Ed Miliband’s energy department is pursuing big clean energy projects, many of them backed by Chinese investment.

Wholly state-owned companies already own stakes in Heathrow Airport and Thames Water.

While Huawei was dramatically banned from the UK’s 5G network back in 2020, Chinese companies fund nuclear power, and the National Grid network.

Senior Conservatives, some sanctioned by the Chinese government, have been vocal about what they see as national security risks from this approach.

A report by parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee in 2023 said China had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy. It warned that “Chinese money was readily accepted by HM Government with few questions asked”.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Some Labour MPs view this with growing concern. One senior MP, speaking privately, said: “The problem is it costs billions of pounds to build reservoirs and nuclear reactors, and we’re not raising that from taxes, so China is where we get that investment.

“There are significant concerns in the party – whether it’s about the security of critical sectors, espionage, or concerns about the use of slave labour in their products.”

Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the business and trade committee, said there needed to be clearer ground rules on Chinese investment.

“If we want to stay ahead of our adversaries, we’ve got to make sure that we’re not handing the most advanced technology to our adversaries,” he said.

“We need a clear definition of economic security from the government, we need a clear threat assessment, and we need a clear way in which business and government are going to work hand in hand to keep our country safe in what are now very different and more dangerous times.”

After a rebuke from the Chinese embassy, which defended the actions of Jingye, the government insists nothing has changed in the relationship.

China is now embroiled in a trade war with the US, and the global trade rules are changing.

The tension emerging is whether economic growth overrides security concerns.