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.
UK
Ex-classmates died after being treated at same mental health hospital – as concerns raised over more deaths
They were former classmates who both died after receiving care from the same mental health hospital three years apart.
Warning: This article contains reference to suicide
Multiple failings led to the death of 22-year-old Alice Figueiredo – who took her own life in July 2015 – and the NHS trust responsible for her care was charged with corporate manslaughter.
Last week, following a months-long trial, the trust was found not guilty of that charge but was convicted of serious health and safety failings.
Karis Braithwate, who had gone to school with Alice, also died in 2018, having been treated by the same NHS trust.
Reports seen by Sky News detail a decade of deaths at North East London NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT), with coroners repeatedly raising concerns about the mental health services provided by the trust – in particular at Goodmayes Hospital in Ilford.
Rushed assessments and neglect were often cited. One patient was marked as alive and well, even though he had taken his own life inside the hospital the previous day.
Another patient told staff he was hearing voices telling him to kill himself, yet staff did not remove crucial items from his possession – items he would later use to take his own life.
Karis, 24, was sent to Goodmayes Hospital after she tried to take her own life at a train station in October 2018. The next day, staff spent 27 minutes assessing her and a further two minutes confirming their conclusion.
Alice Figueiredo (L) and Karis Braithwaite (R) died in 2015 and 2018 respectively
She was discharged from hospital in the afternoon. She then went to a nearby railway station and took her own life. Her death came less than an hour after she had left the hospital.
Karis had been friends with Alice, her mother said. The pair had been classmates at the same school.
Karis told her mother she was upset at being put on the same ward where Alice had taken her own life three years earlier.
Her stepfather Mark Bambridge called Karis sweet and kind and said she often “struggled with life”. He felt relief when she was taken to hospital, saying: “She was in a place where she would be taken care of.”
Mark Bambridge said Karis was a sweet and kind girl
Karis’s mother – who asked not to be named – said her daughter confided in her about the neglect she endured at the hospital.
Karis told her mother that her carer would sleep when they were supposed to be watching over her and said she never felt safe.
“She spoke of her belongings going missing, of being treated with indifference and disrespect, and of staff who showed little concern for her wellbeing,” her mother said.
Karis’s mother said her daughter was failed by the hospital and the family was offered only a “hollow, superficial and indifferent ‘apology’ from the administration team of those who were meant to protect her”.
In the wake of the verdict in Alice’s case, Karis’s mother said: “I am holding Alice’s family in my thoughts and praying they receive the justice they – and we – so clearly need and deserve.”
A spokesperson for NELFT called Karis’s death a “profound tragedy” and said the trust had conducted an in-depth review of patient safety since 2018, “resulting in significant changes in the way we assess risk of suicide”.
“We train our staff to consider the trauma in a patient’s history, rather than focusing solely on their current crisis,” the spokesperson added.
“This approach allows us to see the person behind the diagnosis, making it easier to identify warning signs and support safe recovery.”
The trust said it had also improved record-keeping and communication between emergency workers and mental health practitioners.
The man marked as alive after he’d died
Sky News looked at more than 20 prevention of future death reports, which are written by a coroner to draw attention to a matter in which they think action could be taken to prevent future deaths.
Behind each report is a different person, but there are some strikingly similar themes – failure to carry out adequate risk assessments; issues sharing and recording information; neglect.
One report said staff at Goodmayes Hospital “panicked and did not follow policy” in the wake of a man’s death in 2021, instead writing that he was still alive when he had died the day before.
Speaking in response at the time, the trust said it had written a “detailed action plan” to address concerns raised.
Another report said one woman developed deep vein thrombosis after she was left to sit motionless in her room. She had not eaten or drunk anything in the two days before her death, and the trust was criticised for failing to record her food intake.
Responding to the report at the time, the trust said it had implemented new policies to learn from her death.
Issues stretched beyond Goodmayes Hospital and spanned the entire NHS trust.
One man was not given any community support and overdosed after his access to medication was not limited.
Another man, a father of three, was detained under the Mental Health Act but released from Goodmayes after just a few hours. The 39-year-old was found dead two weeks later after being reported missing by his family.
At his inquest, a coroner raised concerns about the lack of a detailed assessment around him, with a junior doctor saying he was the only doctor available for 11 wards and 200 patients.
‘Don’t kill yourself on my shift’
It has been 10 years since Alice took her own life inside the walls of Goodmayes Hospital. But current patients say the issues haven’t gone away.
Teresa Whitbread said her 18-year-old granddaughter Chantelle was a high suicide risk but she still managed to escape from the hospital “20 times”.
“I walked in one day and said, ‘Where is Chantelle?’, and no one could tell me,” she told Sky News.
Teresa Whitbread does not want her granddaughter to return to Goodmayes Hospital
On another occasion, Chantelle managed to get into the medical room and stabbed herself and a nurse with a needle.
She said one nurse told her granddaughter: “Don’t kill yourself on my shift. Wait until you go home and kill yourself.”
Teresa grew emotional as she talked about her granddaughter, once a vibrant young girl and avid boxer, whose treatment is now managed by community services.
“It’s made her worse,” Teresa said of Chantelle’s experience at Goodmayes Hospital. “There’s no care, there’s no care plan, there’s no treatment.”
The NEFLT said it could not comment on specific cases but added that “patient safety is our absolute priority, and we work closely with our patients and their families to ensure we provide compassionate care tailored to their needs”.
Chantelle’s family say she is a shell of her former self and have begged mental health services not send her back to Goodmayes.
“Something has to change, and if it doesn’t change, [the hospital] needs to be closed down,” Teresa said.
“Because people are not safe in there.”
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK
MPs have voted to approve a historic bill that would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was approved by 314 votes to 291 at its third reading in the House of Commons – a majority of 23.
Politics Live: MPs back legalising assisted dying in historic Commons vote
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who proposed the legislation, was seen crying in the chamber as it went through.
Campaign group Dignity in Dying hailed the result as “a landmark moment for choice, compassion and dignity at the end of life”.
“MPs have listened to dying people, to bereaved families and to the public, and have voted decisively for the reform that our country needs and deserves,” said Sarah Wootton, its chief executive.
The bill will now go to the House of Lords, where it will face further scrutiny before becoming law.
Due to a four-year “backstop” added to the bill, it could be 2029 before assisted dying is actually offered, potentially coinciding with the end of this government’s parliament.
The bill would allow terminally ill adults with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
Campaigners with Dignity in Dying protest in favour of the assisted dying bill. Pic: PA
MPs have deliberated the proposals for months, with a vote in November passing with a bigger majority of 55.
Since then it has undergone some significant changes, the most controversial being the replacement of a High Court Judge’s approval with the expert panel.
Ms Leadbeater has always insisted her legislation would have the most robust safeguards of any assisted dying laws in the world.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
MP: ‘Surreal’ moment as assisted dying passes Commons
Opening the debate on Friday she said that opposing the bill “is not a neutral act. It is a vote for the status quo”.
She warned that if her plan was rejected, MPs would be asked to vote on it again in 10 years and “that fills me with despair”.
The assisted dying debate was last heard in the Commons in 2015, when it was defeated by 330 votes to 118.
There have been calls for a change in the law for decades, with a campaign by broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen giving the issue renewed attention in recent years.
Supporters have described the current law as not being fit for purpose, with desperate terminally ill people feeling the need to end their lives in secret or go abroad alone, for fear loved ones will be prosecuted for helping them.
Ahead of the vote, an hours-long emotionally charged debate heard MPs tell personal stories about their friends and family.
Maureen Burke, the Labour MP for Glasgow North East, spoke about how her terminally ill brother David was in so much pain from advanced pancreatic cancer that one of the last things he told her was that “if there was a pill that he could take to end his life, he would very much like to take that”.
She said she was “doing right by her brother” in voting for it.
How did MPs vote?
MPs were given a free vote, meaning they could vote with their conscience and not along party lines.
The division list shows Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer voted in favour of the bill, but Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch voted against.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who will have to deliver the bill, also voted no.
Read more: Find out how your MP voted
Bill ‘poorly drafted’
Opponents have raised both practical and ethical concerns, including that people could be coerced into seeking an assisted death and that the bill has been rushed through.
Veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott said she was not opposed to the principle of assisted dying but called the legislation “poorly drafted”.
Former foreign secretary James Cleverly echoed those concerns, saying he is “struck by the number of professional bodies which are neutral on the topic of assisted dying in general, but all are opposed to the provisions of this bill”.
Recently, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians have raised concerns about the bill, including that there is a shortage of staff to take part in assisted dying panels.
However, public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a YouGov poll published on the eve of the vote.
The survey of 2,003 adults in Great Britain suggested 73% of those asked last month were supportive of the bill, while the proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle stood at 75%.
The assisted dying bill passed its third reading in the Commons with a majority of 23 and will now be passed to the House of Lords.
There were 314 votes in favour and 291 against.
In November, the bill passed its second reading by a majority of 55, more than twice as large as today. It then went to “committee stage”, during which the wording and implications were examined in detail, and tweaked with input from experts, stakeholders and the public.
Politics latest: Bill legalising assisted dying passed in the Commons
That amended bill will now be passed on to the House of Lords, where it will go through a similar process before being either passed back to the Commons with further amendments, or sent to the King for Royal Assent.
Only after both houses agree on the exact wording of the bill does it become law.
Who changed their vote since November?
A total of 56 MPs voted a different way today, compared to how they did in November. There were 11 who changed to yes, while 24 changed to no. There were also 21 MPs who voted last time who chose to abstain today.
Among those who chose to change their vote were foreign secretary David Lammy and culture secretary Lisa Nandy. Mr Lammy had voted against the bill in November, while Ms Nandy voted in favour. Both chose not to vote today.
Only one MP, Labour’s Jack Abbott, voted in favour today after voting against at the second reading.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has voted in favour of the bill on both occasions, as has Chancellor Rachel Reeves and former prime minister Rishi Sunak.
The health secretary, Wes Streeting, who will have a crucial role in implementing the legislation if it becomes law, has voted against the bill both times, as has Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, and opposition party leaders Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage.
Lib Dem leader Ed Davey voted against the second reading, but chose not to vote today.
The SNP again chose not to vote, as the bill will not apply to Scotland, but a majority of MSPs in the devolved Scottish parliament voted through similar proposals in its first stage last month.
They were among 43 MPs in total who did not vote this time, including the Speaker and his Deputies. That’s slightly lower than the 46 MPs who abstained during the second reading vote in November.
Overall, a clear majority of Labour MPs supported the bill, while most Conservatives voted against it.
What do the public think?
Pollsters YouGov asked people if they were in favour of assisted dying or against, before November’s second reading and again last month.
On both occasions, a majority said they approved of the policy becoming legal, both in principle and in practice.
The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
-
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
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike