Westminster Accounts: Middlemen, brokers, and clients – who really pays MPs for their other jobs?
Thirty-eight MPs have taken on second jobs where the ultimate party paying them is unclear, according to Sky News’ analysis of the MPs’ Register of Financial Interests.
The jobs mainly involve MPs being paid through a broker – a consultancy business, a communications firm, or a speakers’ bureau – while not declaring the clients they are working for.
It casts doubt on the systems which are supposed to ensure transparency around MPs’ earnings.
The analysis was conducted as part of the Westminster Accounts – a Sky News and Tortoise Media project that aims to shine a light on money in UK politics.
But this light has made the remaining shadows all the more stark.
Read more:
Search for your MP
Why the Westminster Accounts matter
Ex-cabinet minister Sir John Whittingdale provides one of the clearest examples of these cases, but two current ministers – Andrew Mitchell and Johnny Mercer – also appear to fall into this category. Some MPs told Sky News they had signed contracts restricting them from being transparent about the clients they’d worked with.
It begs the question of who is really influencing UK politicians, with Transparency International saying the findings could suggest there’s a “culture of opacity” among some MPs.
MPs are supposed to give details about their non-parliamentary earnings in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
On the face of it, that is what Sir John has done.
He’s a former culture secretary and a long-serving MP with a wealth of political experience. He’s been offering his insight, as MPs are entitled to do, via a company called AlphaSights, which connects experts like him with its clients.
But it remains unknown who the clients Sir John spoke to are.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sam Coates explains how and why the Westminster Accounts tool was made
He’s reported in his public filings that he’s received more than £10,500 from AlphaSights to tap into his expertise across 17 different engagements.
He was quizzed earlier this year on two of these dealings by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA), the watchdog overseeing ex-ministers’ jobs, after he failed to seek approval for this work from the committee.
He was deemed not to have broken any rules, however, as he told the chair of ACOBA that he had no long-term relationship with AlphaSights and they were separate “one-off” speeches he delivered. Prior approval is not necessary for one-off speeches.
However, this seems hard to reconcile with the fact that Sir John has had 15 other engagements with AlphaSights since 2017, as the Westminster Accounts help reveal. And an ex-AlphaSights employee has told Sky News that rather than “speeches”, the work typically involves attending a meeting or having a call with two or three people from the client company.
These clients, who pay a fee for the privilege, are usually investment firms and consultancies looking for insight from experts to help make business decisions.
Sir John did not respond to questions from Sky News regarding who these clients were.
Read more:
Westminster Accounts: Following the money
How to explore the database for yourself
It is a clear example where the companies paying to contract an MP’s services, and the company reported publicly in the Register of Interests – AlphaSights in this case – differ.
Sir John’s case is just one of many where these questions apply.
Defence minister Mr Mercer, for example, declared payments of £3,600 and £1,110 in 2021 for two speaking engagements from Chartwell Speakers, a speaker agency.
No details are given in the register as to who the clients acting through the agency were, as MPs are usually expected to report in these instances.
Beyond speeches and individual engagements, there is a wider group of 11 MPs who are on the books of communications or political consultancies who often don’t give details about the clients they work with.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
MPs’ second jobs – what are the rules?
International development minister Mr Mitchell, for example, had been working as an advisor to Montrose Associates until last October, when he returned to government as a minister.
Montrose Associates is a strategic consultancy which, according to its website, draws on “access to privileged networks of decision-makers” when advising its clients.
Mr Mitchell received more than £340,000 for around 75 days of work since taking up the role in 2013. Exactly which clients he worked with and what he did cannot be known from the cursory description of his work given in the Register of Interests.
This lack of transparency creates particular problems for holding ex-ministers to account. They often undertake new roles on the condition they refrain from lobbying government on behalf of clients of their employers.
Tracey Crouch, another former minister, received approval from ACOBA to become a senior advisor to communications firm The Playbook between February 2018 and March 2020. Her role was to advise some of The Playbook’s clients in the technology and energy sector.
But who these clients were has not been reported in the public record. This was despite ACOBA advising Ms Crouch she couldn’t lobby on behalf of The Playbook’s clients for two years after leaving government.
There is no suggestion Ms Crouch – or any other MP – has broken lobbying rules. But Steve Goodrich, head of research and investigations at Transparency International UK, has cast doubt on the systems designed to ensure politicians aren’t being unduly influenced.
“ACOBA is a paper tiger – it has no teeth, no ability to enforce the advice that it gives,” he said.
“And there’s a broader question about whether these omissions reflect a wider culture of opacity within parliament, at least among some members, that needs challenging. That’s more of a cultural issue, which may be harder to shift.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
How you can explore the Westminster Accounts
There is also another group of MPs who have financial interests that may not be apparent from public disclosures.
Ten MPs have had employment with investment or private equity funds where there is a reasonable expectation they will be advising or making investment decisions about firms within the portfolios of these parent companies.
Yet the current rules – or the enforcement around them – put little onus on MPs to report these details.
David Davis, for example, the former Brexit secretary, sits on the advisory board of THI Holdings GmbH, an investment firm that declares holdings in seven companies on its website.
One of these companies is Oxford International Education Group – where Conservative MP Chris Skidmore sits on the advisory board. Were Mr Skidmore to speak in parliament on higher education issues, he would be expected to draw attention to his financial interest in this area.
But from what Mr Davis has disclosed, it is far more difficult to understand how ACOBA’s advice – which stated that Mr Davis should not lobby on behalf of THI’s subsidiaries in the two years after leaving government in 2019 – could be easily enforced.
Mr Davis is far from alone in working for one of these firms. Andrew Mitchell, Johnathan Djanogly, Richard Fuller, Bim Afolami, Alun Cairns and Stephen McPartland have all had positions with boutique investment firms in the past three years. There is no suggestion these MPs have broken any rules.
A spokesperson for Mr Mitchell told Sky News that all his outside business interests have always been properly registered in the normal way. Mr Mercer, Ms Crouch, and Mr Davis did not respond when asked for comment.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘We all welcome transparency’
MPs more likely to ask questions in parliament after taking up jobs in finance
Recent research from Dr Simon Weschle, author of Money In Politics, shows that MPs in certain types of second jobs behave differently.
He found that MPs were more likely to ask questions in parliament after taking up jobs in finance or the legal profession.
Dr Weschle said the lack of detail disclosed around these jobs makes it difficult to know if this amounts to lobbying, which would break the rules.
He said: “They could be asking more questions for a number of other reasons or for a reason directly relating to their work… but because we don’t know who they’re advising, who they have holdings in – who they’re ultimately working for – it’s really hard to make that connection.”
One reason MPs may not disclose further details is if doing so may conflict with professional practices.
Ten current MPs, for example, have worked as lawyers and accountants this parliament without naming their clients. Some may feel it inappropriate to disclose the firms or individuals contracting their services.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, for instance, is one MP who has reported payments for giving legal advice with little detail offered as to the source of these funds. Sir Geoffrey Cox, who has earned more than £2m in legal fees this parliament, is another who provides details of the chambers who pay him, but rarely his clients.
Sky News understands there are no professional standards rules in the legal or accountancy profession that would stop MPs disclosing their clients, unless they expressly requested anonymity.
Some MPs involved in business consulting have told Sky News they have signed contracts that prevent them from naming clients publicly.
Yet if these obligations are sometimes the reason for a lack of disclosure, it calls into question the rules which at times seem to put MPs’ private interests above the transparency of the system. In some places, like the US, this problem has been solved by banning politicians from having second jobs.
Dr Weschle thinks there’s room for reform in the UK: “It seems to be that second jobs clearly undermine the public’s trust in politicians… so we should think about whether certain kinds of jobs should be more restricted, or whether MPs should be made to be more transparent about what they’re doing.”
Additional reporting: Ganesh Rao
Venezuela has accused the US of “piracy” after an oil tanker was seized off the country’s coast.
Donald Trump announced the operation had taken place during a meeting of business leaders at the White House, telling reporters: “We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, a large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi shared a video of the operation, revealing the FBI, Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, and Department of Defence were involved.
She said the US forces “executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran”.
Venezuela’s government said the seizure “constitutes a blatant theft and an act of international piracy.”
Pics: X/@AGPamBondi
Ms Bondi said the seized vessel – believed to be a tanker named Skipper – has been sanctioned by the US for many years “due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organisations”.
She did not name the vessel, what flag it sailed under, or exactly where the incident took place.
UK maritime risk management group Vanguard said that the tanker Skipper – which the US sanctioned for alleged involvement in Iranian oil trading under the name Adisa – was believed to be the target.
Trump offers ominous commentary
Without giving additional information on the operation, Mr Trump added during the White House meeting that “other things are happening”.
Later, Mr Trump said the tanker was “seized for a very good reason”, and when asked what will happen to the oil on board, he added: “Well, we keep it, I suppose.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
US seizing oil tanker a ‘significant escalation’
How did we get here?
It marks another escalation from the US after months of pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
The White House accuses Mr Maduro of presiding over a narcotrafficking operation in Venezuela, which he denies.
The US has escalated military deployments against the Latin American country over the last few months, with the president suggesting American forces could launch a land attack.
Speaking to Politico on Tuesday, Mr Trump declined to comment on whether US troops would enter Venezuela, but warned Mr Maduro’s “days are numbered”.
On 2 September, the White House posted on X that it had conducted a strike against so-called “narcoterrorists” shipping fentanyl to the US, without providing direct evidence of the alleged crime.
Sky News has verified that in the past four months, 23 boats have been targeted in 22 strikes, killing 87 people.
Read more: Is this what the beginning of a war looks like?
Venezuela: ‘It has always been about our oil’
The Maduro government describes America’s actions as a grab for Venezuela’s oil reserves, which are among the biggest in the world.
At a rally before a ruling-party-organised demonstration in Caracas on Wednesday, Mr Maduro did not address the seizure but told supporters Venezuela is “prepared to break the teeth of the North American empire if necessary”.
Flanked by senior officials, he said that only the ruling party can “guarantee peace, stability, and the harmonious development of Venezuela, South America and the Caribbean”.
His government did issue a statement, accusing the US of “piracy” and “imperial abuses”.
Of the US campaign, it said: “It has always been about our natural resources, our oil, our energy, the resources that belong exclusively to the Venezuelan people.”
Read more on Venezuela:
Hegseth cites ‘fog of war’ defence
US aircraft carrier close to Venezuela
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Are US strikes on Venezuela about drugs or oil?
Is military confrontation possible?
Geoffrey Corn, director of the Centre for Military Law at Texas Tech University, told Sky’s Mark Austin on The World that Mr Trump’s remarks on land strikes “ostensibly” refer to drug cartel members.
Formerly a senior adviser to the US army on warfare law, Mr Corn added: “That could very easily provide the pretext for some confrontation between Venezuelan armed forces and US armed forces.
“And then that would open the door to a broader campaign to basically negate the power of the Venezuelan military.”
World
British soldier killed in Ukraine named – as Trump exchanges ‘strong words’ with Kyiv’s allies
Tributes have been paid to a British soldier killed in Ukraine, as the country’s allies prepare for talks before a crucial potential meeting with Donald Trump.
Lance Corporal George Hooley, 28, has been named as the paratrooper who died in a “tragic accident” on Tuesday while observing Ukrainian forces testing a new defensive capability away from the frontline.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said he joined the army in November 2015 and was “an exceptional soldier”.
Defence Secretary John Healey said he “served our country with distinction and professionalism” and “will be very deeply missed”.
He added: “George’s tragic death reminds us of the courage and commitment with which our outstanding armed forces serve every day to protect our nation.”
Coalition of the willing to meet
Britain has been one of Ukraine’s biggest backers since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, and that support will again come into play on Thursday.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy will hold a virtual meeting with members of the self-styled coalition of the willing, after reports Kyiv has handed its revised peace deal proposal to US negotiators.
Mr Zelenskyy said the revised proposal has 20 points, after some “obvious anti-Ukrainian points were removed”.
The original US draft proposal had 28 points, and was seen as favouring Russia.
Read more: Trump’s 28-point Ukraine peace plan in full
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump could ‘pull plug’ on Ukraine
Zelenskyy hopeful of progress
Ukraine has sought to change some key clauses, such as territorial issues and security guarantees, following talks with US and European negotiators.
In his nightly address on Wednesday, Mr Zelenskyy said his country is also drafting two additional documents: the first regarding US security guarantees and the second on the economy and reconstruction.
He said Kyiv’s peace delegation held a “productive conversation” with the US earlier, and “discussed key issues for recovery, various mechanisms, and visions of reconstruction”.
He also revealed he discussed the possibility of holding elections with Ukraine’s parliament, but that holding elections under martial law was not easy.
Trump has ‘strong words’ with European leaders
It comes after Donald Trump used an interview with Politico to accuse Mr Zelenskyy of “using war” to avoid holding elections. The US president also claimed his Ukrainian counterpart had not read the original 28-point peace plan.
Mr Trump held a call with coalition of the willing members Sir Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, ad Friedrich Merz on Wednesday, and said some “pretty strong words” were exchanged.
Earlier this week, he called Europe’s leaders “weak” and criticising them for failing to end the war.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why is Trump attacking European allies?
Speaking at the White House on Wednesday, Mr Trump said Mr Zelenskyy was keen on a meeting involving him and European leaders this weekend, but warned his attendance will be “based on what they come back with”.
Today’s virtual meeting comes days after Sir Keir hosted Mr Zelenskyy, Mr Macron and Mr Merz in Downing Street.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Zelenskyy meets leaders in Downing Street
The period of intense diplomacy comes as the fighting continues on the ground in Ukraine.
Its military says it’s still fending off a Russian assault launched on the key city of Pokrovsk, while energy infrastructure has been targeted by drones in southern Odesa.
World
Maria Corina Machado missed the ceremony, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner is heading to Oslo after ‘extraordinary’ day
The Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado didn’t make it to Oslo in time to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in person, in an extraordinary day shrouded in uncertainty over her whereabouts.
Machado isn’t the first Nobel Laureate unable to attend, but her journey to Oslo was unprecedented in the history of the prestigious prize.
Her departure from Venezuela, carried out amid heavy secrecy and probably with covert US help, was fraught with risk, but on Wednesday she was en route to Norway, where she is expected to land late in the evening.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sister’s ‘mixed emotions’ over Nobel prize
Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro joins supporters marching to commemorate the Battle of Santa Ines. Pic: Reuters
Reports suggested she first travelled by boat to the Caribbean island of Curaçao before getting a private flight via the US. Two US F-16 jets were tracked in the skies close to Curaçao late Tuesday night.
In a phone call with members of the Nobel Institute, released just after she took off, Machado said she was “very sad” not to make it in person but “as soon as I arrive, I will be able to embrace all my family and children.”
In her absence, her daughter Ana Corina Sosa Machado, whom she hasn’t seen for almost two years, collected the award in Oslo City Hall and delivered the speech her mother wrote.
She spoke about 2,500 people who had been “kidnapped, disappeared or tortured” under Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro’s government and slammed the corruption that has brought Venezuela, once one of the world’s richest nations, to its knees.
“This prize carries profound meaning; it reminds the world that democracy is essential to peace.
“More than anything, what we Venezuelans can offer the world is the lesson forged through this long and difficult journey – that to have democracy, we must be willing to fight for freedom.”
Maria Corina Machado addresses supporters at an anti-Maduro protest in January. File pic: AP
Corina Perez de Machado, mother of Maria Corina Machado, at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo. Pic: Reuters
To a standing ovation from an audience that included several South American leaders, Machado thanked the people of Norway and sent a message to her fellow countrymen and women, many of whom had travelled to Oslo from their homes outside Venezuela.
“Venezuela will breathe again,” her daughter read.
“We will open prison doors and watch thousands who were unjustly detained step into the warm sun, embraced at last by those who never stopped fighting for them.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Are US strikes on Venezuela about drugs or oil?
“We will see our grandmothers settle children on their laps to tell them stories not of distant forefathers but of their own parents’ courage.
“We will hug again. Fall in love again. Hear our streets fill with laughter and music. All the simple joys the world takes for granted will be ours.”
Ms Machado is the leader of a grassroots political movement fighting for democracy in Venezuela.
She was banned by Nicolas Maduro from running for election, so she rallied a campaign behind a little-known veteran diplomat Edmundo Gonzalez.
She organised and trained more than a million volunteers to monitor elections in 2024 and collect data.
Those results, smuggled out of the country, were verified by independent experts and confirmed a landslide win for Gonzalez and Machado’s party.
Maduro refused to recognise the result and detained thousands of opponents.
More on US-Venezuela crisis:
US seizes Venezuelan oil tanker
Is this how a war starts?
Maduro ready for land strikes
Protests have failed to dislodge him, although US president Donald Trump has stationed a massive naval force off the coast and has warned the Venezuelan leader his “days are numbered”.
Mr Trump had lobbied publicly to win this year’s Nobel Prize himself, but rang Machado to congratulate her. Some members of Trump’s administration had threatened the Nobel committee if he didn’t win.
Edmundo Gonzalez, who was at the ceremony in Oslo, has since gone into exile in Spain, but Machado has remained in Venezuela, spending most of her time in hiding.
Her mother, sister and children have also travelled to Oslo to be reunited with her.
The decision to travel to Norway is fraught with risk.
Having successfully left the country, she faces a dangerous journey home again.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024