Westminster Accounts: Transparency in politics often feels like it falls short – we want to shine a light on that
On a freezing, foggy evening in December, the House of Commons finally formally responded to the last major financial sleaze scandal to hit parliament, and in doing so, sent an important signal about the way politicians look after themselves.
After more than a year of deliberation, the debate and vote late in the evening of Monday 12 December was the moment MPs would finally agree to a package of reforms in the aftermath of the Owen Paterson scandal.
Some might have expected fireworks, given they were collectively responding to the disgrace of one of their own found guilty of lobbying for cash during the pandemic – bringing the stench of political scandal back to Westminster and even hastening Boris Johnson’s departure after the former PM initially stuck up for Paterson.
The votes came shortly after 10.30pm and saw barely half of all MPs shuffling unenthusiastically through the division lobbies to register their position.
Read more:
MPs earn £17.1m on top of their salaries since the last election – with Tories taking £15.4m
Search for your MP using the Westminster Accounts tool
Westminster Accounts: Following the money
How to explore the database for yourself
I spent much of the evening in central lobby next door and detected little passion or interest about the subject under discussion from all but a handful.
A year earlier, such a vote would have been electric because sleaze was in the headlines, but as the temperatures that night dipped below zero again, it was clear neither MPs nor commentators cared much.
What was agreed that night did amount to an important incremental tightening of the rules that was welcomed by campaigners. But the focus of the Westminster juggernaut had moved on with the change of prime minister. The vote was of little interest because many thought it of minimal practical consequence to them – it might mean up to 30 MPs have to reassess second jobs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
How you can explore the Westminster Accounts
The Labour plan to ban second jobs had no chance of a majority after the Tories backed away earlier in the year. The debate, decision and votes generated not a single headline anywhere. Yet still, this moment sends a fascinating signal.
The real importance of what happened on 12 December 2022 was that MPs were telling the public that, in broad terms, the sleaze safeguards work well as they are. They were ultimately endorsing much of the status quo and deciding it was to stay in place.
The existing system to regulate MPs was, they were saying, fit for purpose and the current transparency declaration rules should stay as they are. And while there is genuine division over banning second jobs between the main parties, there was little sense of a need for other changes.
So what mattered that night was what was not on the table in the Commons and what was not discussed, but so many questions remain.
Is this the best system we could possibly have, given the Paterson affair happened as it did? Have MPs really come up with the best way to collect and publish data about outside earnings, gifts and donations? Is the register of members’ financial interests a sufficient guide to the financial dealings of MPs?
Why shouldn’t we be able to compare MPs’ outside earnings and rank them in order of what they get? Why shouldn’t we be able to work out who are the biggest donors to individual MPs, just as we can for political parties? Why shouldn’t we see more easily the networks donors give to? Who receives the largest sums, and which MPs appear to need no additional donations at all?
Just because there is no apparent appetite amongst MPs to explore these questions does not mean that others should not.
That is why today Sky News launches the Westminster Accounts. Built as a collaboration with our partners at Tortoise Media, it marks a major experiment in transparency and public accountability in an attempt to shine a light on how money moves through the political system. And unlike most other exercises in journalism, we are sharing our workings.
In a landmark move, we are publishing a new publicly available tool to give voters the chance to explore. Everyone will be able to play with the financial data we have collected from publicly available sources about each MP, explore a new universe connecting the financial dots across our political universe – and draw their own conclusions.
It is an enormous effort lasting over six months, involving dozens of journalists, data scientists and designers from both media organisations, and is ready to use right now.
The Westminster Accounts in three steps
The Westminster Accounts involves three steps. Firstly, using publicly available data from parliament’s register of members’ interests and the Electoral Commission, Sky News commissioned Tortoise Media to build a spreadsheet showing us data about MPs’ earnings, donations and gifts in this parliament, since December 2019, alongside party donation data from the Electoral Commission database.
We now, for the first time, have a single figure for how much each MP has earned in this parliament and how much has been donated and from where. Alongside this, we have taken the information from the parliament website about the financial benefits provided by private companies and other organisations to fund all-party parliamentary groups that support informal networks of MPs, to help look at business activity in Westminster.
Secondly, Tortoise Media has turned this spreadsheet into a snazzy, carefully curated online tool accessible to everyone via the Sky News website and app. This allows anyone to, in the first instance, search the financial information of any MP and understand their financial affairs in comparison to colleagues.
Then in a powerful and unprecedented move, once users have explored one MP’s financial affairs, they then have the ability to search by donor, MP and party in the political-financial universe represented by a series of globes. This tool will be updated every few weeks with the latest data provided by the authorities, at least up until the next general election.
Thirdly, Sky News has studied the data collected and used it to tell a series of interesting stories both about what we discovered and what the numbers reveal – but also about where the transparency promised by our leaders falls short.
Today we look at second jobs data, publishing a league table of the highest earners since December 2019, a feat not possible until now. But by treating the data as a starting point for our enquiries, we go deeper by examining company accounts of leading politicians and comparing second job promises with reality.
The significance of the stories in the coming days will be the discovery of what politicians have not told us, as well as what they have.
Risks of the project
This project is not without risk. We have created league tables of donors and earners, something the political system disliked. We will be told we have ignored context – some earnings are donated to charity, some MPs will earn more than others for less work, and MPs in marginal seats will have to raise more funds for campaigning than those in safe seats.
But we defend our right to look at the numbers in this way; and encourage the conversation that will follow, however difficult.
The most complex task, in crude terms, has been to turn the register of members’ interests into a spreadsheet. This involved turning the register’s complex written entries into stark figures for spreadsheet cells, stripped of the context which appears in their preferred format to allow us and our viewers to compare like with like. MPs will inevitably object, assert the project unfair and hunt for discrepancies.
This is not a process that – yet – can be done automatically and has involved hundreds of man-hours to check and double-check the entries. Given the volume of data on that scale, human error is an inevitability, and we will correct those and listen carefully to complaints.
However, we have assembled the data based on information MPs are required to submit, based on a methodology which has been externally validated and is available on this website. We profoundly believe and would justify our right to attempt such an exercise, to compare and contrast MPs – something by their nature they often feel uncomfortable about.
But rather than avoiding the exercise, Sky News is attempting to help shine a light on how money works in politics, so the public better understands what is going on.
If MPs are to defend what they believe are reasonable, legitimate practices, explaining them clearly rather than hiding them away might be a better answer.
Hannah White, director of the Institute for Government, goes further, suggesting it would have been entirely possible for MPs to do what we have – but avoided this for a reason.
“I think it’s a really good question why parliament hasn’t done this before for itself and the answer really is hiding in plain sight. There’s no incentive. For MPs really to make it easy to do the sort of comparison that you’ve done in this exercise.
“It’s much easier for them to say we’ve been transparent data is out there. People can go and look for it if they want to. But in fact, that data isn’t very easy to use, and it’s not real transparency.”
“I think the value of this tool is it enables us to see what real transparency might look like and hopefully, parliament and the Electoral Commission, will reflect and think, are we actually achieving the end that we’re trying to achieve? When we require transparency from our politicians, from our political parties, should we be doing this better ourselves? Should it be up to Sky and Tortoise to be doing this data analysis?”
Transparency is the best disinfectant
After every Westminster scandal, we are told that “transparency is the best disinfectant”. That is what we are testing in this exercise, and looking at the information they are required to submit to evaluate what it tells us.
We started from an important set of principles. There is no assumption money in politics is a bad thing, just a political reality. This project has not set out to find a scandal and nor have we stumbled across one.
We make no judgement on MPs’ holding second jobs or getting money from outside sources, just defend our right to try and compare MPs with each other on the basis of their earnings. (We note Sir Geoffrey Cox, who is happy to provide a lengthy explanation of his barrister work, was elected by the voters of West Devon and Torridge with healthy majorities at each of the last five general elections.)
Our only goal has been to understand better what goes on as money flows through the system.
But as viewers will see from our reporting this week, that transparency has felt like it too often falls short, and when MPs are asked questions about donations, earnings, donors or gifts, they shy away from the camera and try and ignore the questions. Far too often evasion is the default response when questions involve money.
Politicians always tell us that we can trust them because they are transparent – that they are upfront about all of their dealings.
Last month MPs quietly made clear they were broadly content with the level of transparency the public is offered, tinkering with rather than transforming the system. This week the Westminster Accounts will pose the question of whether the rest of us are too.
World
Zelenskyy knows he risks another Oval Office ambush – but has to be a willing participant in peace talks
There will be no red carpet or fly past, no round of applause when Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives in Washington DC on Monday.
But the bitter memory of his last visit to the White House will feature prominently in the Ukrainian president’s thoughts.
In February, he was mocked for not wearing a suit and told he didn’t “have the cards” by US President Donald Trump, before being walked off the premises early, like an unruly patron being thrown out of the bar.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Blow-by-blow: Inside Zelenskyy and Trump’s February clash
Zelenskyy knows he is risking another ambush in the Oval Office but has to present himself as a willing participant in peace talks, out of fear of being painted as the obstacle to a resolution.
There was initially measured optimism in Kyiv after Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, because it appeared that no deal had been cut between Washington and the Kremlin without Ukraine in the room, as had been feared.
But that restrained positivity quickly evaporated with the release of a statement by Trump the morning after the night before.
Pic: AP
In the heady heights of a meeting with strongman Putin, he seemed to have abandoned the one key thing that European leaders had impressed upon him – that there had to be an unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine as an absolute starting point to a permanent resolution.
Trump had apparently reached the conclusion that no ceasefire was required. “The best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine… is to go directly to a peace agreement,” is how he put it on his Truth Social media account.
Read more:
Key takeaways from Sky correspondents
Body language expert unpacks the summit
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump-Putin summit – The Debrief
That sent shockwaves through Kyiv.
Many there and elsewhere believe Russia has no intention of stopping the war yet, and will use its military advantage on the battlefield to pressure Ukraine in drawn-out negotiations to give up more territory.
In the meantime, the slaughter of Ukrainians will continue.
It is the most dramatic of 180s from Trump, who before the meeting and after lobbying from European leaders had said he would not be happy if Putin failed to agree to a ceasefire, and even promised “severe consequences”.
Yet now reports suggest Trump is giving credence to the Russian position – in a phone call to Zelenskyy he laid out Putin’s proposal that Ukraine relinquishes even more territory, in return for an end to the war.
The Ukrainian president will have, no doubt, been distressed to see the pictures of Putin being greeted like a king on an American military base in Alaska. It is in direct contrast to how he was hosted on US soil.
In Trump’s orbit everything is a personality contest, and where he has very obvious deference to Putin, he has disdain for Zelenskyy. That makes the Ukrainian’s position very difficult.
Any agreement between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin following their historic summit could leave Ukraine in an impossible position after three years of brutal, grinding war for survival.
While no deal was struck when they met in Alaska on Friday, the two leaders are believed to have discussed the possibility of Ukraine giving up territory in exchange for an end to the fighting.
That would effectively be an annexation of sovereign Ukrainian territory by Russia by force.
Russia currently occupies around 19% of Ukraine, including Crimea and the parts of the Donbas region it seized prior to the full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Use the slider above to see how much territory Russia controlled in March 2022 – when it controlled the most – compared with now.
Going into the summit, Mr Trump said he hoped to get “prime territory” back for Ukraine.
Mr Putin reportedly made demands to take control of key regions of Ukraine as a condition for ending the war during the summit.
The Russian leader is said to have told the US president that he wants the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions, adding he would give up other Ukrainian territories held by his troops in return.
The land Russia wants to take would put Ukraine’s eastern Dombas region fully under their control.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy previously said Mr Putin wants the rest of Donetsk – and in effect the entire eastern Donbas region – as part of a ceasefire plan.
He said Kyiv would reject the proposal and explained that such a move would deprive Ukraine of defensive lines and open the way for Moscow to conduct further offensives.
Read more: Vladimir Putin ‘demands key regions of Ukraine in exchange for peace’
Here, Sky News speaks to experts about what a deal between the Russian and American presidents in the coming days could mean for the battlefield.
Will Ukraine be forced to give up territory to Russia?
While Mr Trump’s attitude to Ukrainian resistance appears possibly more favourable from his recent comments, it’s still possible that Kyiv could be asked to give up territory as part of any agreement with Russia.
Moscow has been focused on four oblasts (regions) of Ukraine: Luhansk and Donetsk (the Donbas), Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.
Mr Putin’s forces control almost all of Luhansk, but about 30% of the others remain in Ukrainian hands and are fiercely contested.
The regions of Luhansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine have been subject to fierce fighting
“Russian rates of advance have picked up in the last month, but even though they are making ground, it would still take years (three or more) at current rates to capture all this territory,” Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the RUSI thinktank, told Sky News.
He says it “wouldn’t be surprising” if Russia tried to acquire the rest of the Donbas as part of negotiations – something that is “highly unattractive” for Ukraine and could leave them vulnerable in future.
This would include surrendering some of the “fortress belt” – a network of four settlements including Kramatorsk and Sloviansk – that has held back Russian forces for 11 years.
Military analyst Michael Clarke said this might well satisfy Mr Putin “for now”, but many believe that he would return for the rest of Ukraine – possibly after Mr Trump leaves office.
Mr Zelenskyy has since rejected such a concession, however, saying he has no right to relinquish territory and that the Donbas would be a “springboard for a future new offensive” by Russia.
Would Russia have to return any territory to Ukraine?
The White House appears to have been briefing that it might, though the situation is very unclear.
Mr Savill added: “The Ukrainians might want to even up the situation in the north, by removing Russian incursions into Sumy and near Kharkiv, but of greater importance would be getting the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant back under Ukrainian control, given how much it would contribute to Ukrainian power needs.”
It’s also possible that Russia could be willing to withdraw from the areas of Kherson region that it controls.
It’s “plausible” they could get the power plant back, Mr Clarke said, but Russia would likely insist on maintaining access to Crimea by land.
This would mean that cities Mariupol and Melitopol would remain in Russian hands, with all that that entails for the people living there.
Read more:
What we expected from the summit – and what happened
Analysis: A red carpet for a man with blood on his hands
A ceasefire along the frontline?
Michael Clarke told Sky News that the summit “certainly won’t create peace, but it might create a ceasefire in place if Putin decides to be flexible”.
“So far he hasn’t shown any flexibility at all,” he added.
A ceasefire along the frontline, with minimal withdrawals on both sides, would be “structurally changing” and an “astonishing outcome”, he said.
However, he doubts this will happen. Mr Clarke said a favourable outcome could be the two sides agreeing to a ceasefire that would start in two weeks (for instance), with threats of sanctions from the US if Russia or Ukraine breaks it.
No deal was reached at the summit itself, but the two leaders are expected to continue to speak in the coming days and weeks.
“If something goes wrong, there shouldn’t be multiple deaths. I should be the only one.”
Where once Islamic State ruled the land, the black flag of its caliphate heralding unspeakable violence and horrors in the city of Raqqa, now people are trying to return to normal lives.
But left behind are landmines, IEDs (improvised explosive devices), booby traps and other explosives that pose a deadly threat to civilians – years after the terror group was driven out of its former capital.
All over Syria, hundreds of thousands of people are returning to their homes after the fall of dictator Bashar al Assad. But the landscape is scarred with unexploded ordnance installed not just by IS, but by multiple sides in the decade-long civil war.
Mine disposal expert Sunil Thapa knows that every moment he works could be his last.
He is one of the most experienced ordnance disposal experts in the world, having defused explosives by hand for the last 19 years.
As he works in warzones across the globe, he thinks of his family and the colleagues whose lives the job has claimed over the years.
His day in Raqqa starts early, at 6am.
“Once you move out of your house, you can see the remnants of war,” the 39-year-old tells Sky News.
“You cannot see a single house in Raqqa that is in good condition. They are destroyed or you can see the footprints of explosive ordnance or bullets.
“When you go out, it disturbs your mind. It’s easy to imagine the ISIS (IS) occupation, how brutal fighting happened in this area. It will take years and years to rebuild.”
Sunil and his colleagues are only allowed to stray 300 metres from their accommodation for security reasons when not at work. But it’s a work day, so he’s headed out to the Mines Advisory Group’s (MAG) operational base.
There he briefs the teams and decides where to go first. There are often multiple sites in the area that need his expertise in defusing mines and explosives, so he has to prioritise.
MAG mine detection staff arrive for work. Pic: MAG
“I go where I am needed most. The teams’ job is to detect the threat – landmines, cluster munitions or IEDs – it’s solely my responsibility to defuse them.”
He arrives at his first call of the day and instructs colleagues on what happens next, telling them how far the exclusion zone needs to be.
“The safety distance should be 100 metres for an anti-vehicle mine and 50 metres for an anti-personnel mine.
“Because while defusing explosives, if something goes wrong, there shouldn’t be multiple deaths. I should be the only one.
“I have dealt with thousands and thousands, I don’t even remember the numbers I have disarmed.”
IS fighters parade along the streets of Raqqa province in 2014. Pic: Reuters
Sunil shows Sky News an anti-vehicle mine that he has already made safe, talking through how he went about defusing it.
Step by step, he explains how he removed the rubber cap before turning elements of the mine in various directions to fully neutralise the explosive.
“But every time, before I reach to disarm, the first thing that comes into your mind is you remember your family. Then you beg to your God: ‘This time please allow me to go and meet my family’.”
He adds: “If people say they are not scared, they are probably lying. No matter how skilled you are, or how much experience you have, you just need a bad day to get killed.
“If I’m holding an anti-personnel mine and it slips from my hand and hits the ground with enough force, it will detonate.”
Sunil in front of a Red Crescent truck that hit a mine. Pic: MAG
Sunil, from western Nepal, started out in the Nepali Army, disposing of landmines on two UN peacekeeping missions in Haiti and Mali.
Now he works for MAG, a global humanitarian organisation that finds, removes and destroys landmines, cluster munitions and unexploded bombs from places affected by conflict.
The group, which was supported by Princess Diana, was this week awarded the Conrad N Hilton Humanitarian Prize, the highest global humanitarian award recognising non-profits worldwide dedicated to alleviating human suffering.
Chief executive Darren Cormack said the prize is “recognition of the tireless and courageous work of our global staff”.
Read more:
British girl returns to UK from ISIS detention camp in Syria
CCTV shows hospital volunteer being shot dead in Syria
The scale of MAG’s challenge in Syria is staggering.
Since the fall of Assad there have been more than 1,100 casualties from landmines and unexploded ordnance, including nearly 500 deaths, according to data from the INSO humanitarian organisation.
And the situation could get worse. Already this year more than half a million Syrians have returned to their homes. This is expected to rise to two million by the end of 2025, the UN says.
Sunil disarms each mine by hand – a dangerous task. Pic: MAG
Sunil does the job for his wife and son, who live back home in Nepal. He says he will likely retire from his frontline job in a few years to spend more time with them.
After starting at 6am and working for hours in the hot sun, Sunil usually gets home around 2.30pm.
There are two restaurants he is allowed to visit in the small 300-metre secure zone around where he lives.
He sleeps for a couple of hours before dinner, exhausted from the day’s work in the field, and does a workout before turning in for the night.
The next day, he will again be up at 6am, ready to continue his dangerous but crucial work making Raqqa safer for its people. One landmine at a time.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike