Connect with us

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Business

Lloyds Banking Group in talks to buy digital wallet provider Curve

Published

on

By

Lloyds Banking Group in talks to buy digital wallet provider Curve

Britain’s biggest high street bank is in talks to buy Curve, the digital wallet provider, amid growing regulatory pressure on Apple to open its payment services to rivals.

Sky News has learnt that Lloyds Banking Group is in advanced discussions to acquire Curve for a price believed to be up to £120m.

City sources said this weekend that if the negotiations were successfully concluded, a deal could be announced by the end of September.

Curve was founded by Shachar Bialick, a former Israeli special forces soldier, in 2016.

Three years later, he told an interviewer: “In 10 years time we are going to be IPOed [listed on the public equity markets]… and hopefully worth around $50bn to $60bn.”

One insider said this weekend that Curve was being advised by KBW, part of the investment bank Stifel, on the discussions with Lloyds.

If a mooted price range of £100m-£120m turns out to be accurate, that would represent a lower valuation than the £133m Curve raised in its Series C funding round, which concluded in 2023.

More on Lloyds

That round included backing from Britannia, IDC Ventures, Cercano Management – the venture arm of Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s estate – and Outward VC.

It was also reported to have raised more than £40m last year, while reducing employee numbers and suspending its US expansion.

In total, the company has raised more than £200m in equity since it was founded.

Curve has been positioned as a rival to Apple Pay in recent years, having initially launched as an app enabling consumers to combine their debit and credit cards in a single wallet.

One source close to the prospective deal said that Lloyds had identified Curve as a strategically attractive bid target as it pushes deeper into payments infrastructure under chief executive Charlie Nunn.

Lloyds is also said to believe that Curve would be a financially rational asset to own because of the fees Apple charges consumers to use its Apple Pay service.

In March, the Financial Conduct Authority and Payment Systems Regulator began working with the Competition and Markets Authority to examine the implications of the growth of digital wallets owned by Apple and Google.

Lloyds owns stakes in a number of fintechs, including the banking-as-a-service platform ThoughtMachine, but has set expanding its tech capabilities as a key strategic objective.

The group employs more than 70,000 people and operates more than 750 branches across Britain.

Curve is chaired by Lord Fink, the former Man Group chief executive who has become a prolific investor in British technology start-ups.

When he was appointed to the role in January, he said: “Working alongside Curve as an investor, I have had a ringside seat to the company’s unassailable and well-earned rise.

“Beginning as a card which combines all your cards into one, to the all-encompassing digital wallet it has evolved into, Curve offers a transformative financial management experience to its users.

“I am proud to have been part of the journey so far, and welcome the chance to support the company through its next, very significant period of growth.”

IDC Ventures, one of the investors in Curve’s Series C funding round, said at the time of its last major fundraising: “Thanks to their unique technology…they have the capability to intercept the transaction and supercharge the customer experience, with its Double Dip Rewards, [and] eliminating nasty hidden fees.

“And they do it seamlessly, without any need for the customer to change the cards they pay with.”

News of the talks between Lloyds and Curve comes days before Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is expected to outline plans to bolster Britain’s fintech sector by endorsing a concierge service to match start-ups with investors.

Lord Fink declined to comment when contacted by Sky News on Saturday morning, while Curve did not respond to an enquiry sent by email.

Lloyds also declined to comment, while Stifel KBW could not be reached for comment.

Continue Reading

Business

UK economy figures not as bad as they look despite GDP fall, analysts say

Published

on

By

UK economy figures not as bad as they look despite GDP fall, analysts say

The UK economy unexpectedly shrank in May, even after the worst of Donald Trump’s tariffs were paused, official figures showed.

A standard measure of economic growth, gross domestic product (GDP), contracted 0.1% in May, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Rather than a fall being anticipated, growth of 0.1% was forecast by economists polled by Reuters as big falls in production and construction were seen.

It followed a 0.3% contraction in April, when Mr Trump announced his country-specific tariffs and sparked a global trade war.

A 90-day pause on these import taxes, which has been extended, allowed more normality to resume.

This was borne out by other figures released by the ONS on Friday.

Exports to the United States rose £300m but “remained relatively low” following a “substantial decrease” in April, the data said.

More on Inflation

Overall, there was a “large rise in goods imports and a fall in goods exports”.

A ‘disappointing’ but mixed picture

It’s “disappointing” news, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said. She and the government as a whole have repeatedly said growing the economy was their number one priority.

“I am determined to kickstart economic growth and deliver on that promise”, she added.

But the picture was not all bad.

Growth recorded in March was revised upwards, further indicating that companies invested to prepare for tariffs. Rather than GDP of 0.2%, the ONS said on Friday the figure was actually 0.4%.

It showed businesses moved forward activity to be ready for the extra taxes. Businesses were hit with higher employer national insurance contributions in April.

Read more:
Trump plans to hit Canada with 35% tariff – warning of blanket hike for other countries
Woman and three teenagers arrested over M&S, Co-op and Harrods cyber attacks

The expansion in March means the economy still grew when the three months are looked at together.

While an interest rate cut in August had already been expected, investors upped their bets of a 0.25 percentage point fall in the Bank of England’s base interest rate.

Such a cut would bring down the rate to 4% and make borrowing cheaper.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Britain going bankrupt?

Analysts from economic research firm Pantheon Macro said the data was not as bad as it looked.

“The size of the manufacturing drop looks erratic to us and should partly unwind… There are signs that GDP growth can rebound in June”, said Pantheon’s chief UK economist, Rob Wood.

Why did the economy shrink?

The drops in manufacturing came mostly due to slowed car-making, less oil and gas extraction and the pharmaceutical industry.

The fall was not larger because the services industry – the largest part of the economy – expanded, with law firms and computer programmers having a good month.

It made up for a “very weak” month for retailers, the ONS said.

Continue Reading

Business

UK economy remains fragile – and there are risks and traps lurking around the corner

Published

on

By

UK economy remains fragile - and there are risks and traps lurking around the corner

Monthly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures are volatile and, on their own, don’t tell us much.

However, the picture emerging a year since the election of the Labour government is not hugely comforting.

This is a government that promised to turbocharge economic growth, the key to improving livelihoods and the public finances. Instead, the economy is mainly flatlining.

Output shrank in May by 0.1%. That followed a 0.3% drop in April.

Ministers were celebrating a few months ago as data showed the economy grew by 0.7% in the first quarter.

Hangover from artificial growth

However, the subsequent data has shown us that much of that growth was artificial, with businesses racing to get orders out of the door to beat the possible introduction of tariffs. Property transactions were also brought forward to beat stamp duty changes.

More from Money

Read more:
Trump to hit Canada with 35% tariff
Woman and three teens arrested over cyber attacks

In April, we experienced the hangover as orders and industrial output dropped. Services also struggled as demand for legal and conveyancing services dropped after the stamp duty changes.

Many of those distortions have now been smoothed out, but the manufacturing sector still struggled in May.

Signs of recovery

Manufacturing output fell by 1% in May, but more up-to-date data suggests the sector is recovering.

“We expect both cars and pharma output to improve as the UK-US trade deal comes into force and the volatility unwinds,” economists at Pantheon Macroeconomics said.

Meanwhile, the services sector eked out growth of 0.1%.

A 2.7% month-to-month fall in retail sales suppressed growth in the sector, but that should improve with hot weather likely to boost demand at restaurants and pubs.

Struggles ahead

It is unlikely, however, to massively shift the dial for the economy, the kind of shift the Labour government has promised and needs in order to give it some breathing room against its fiscal rules.

The economy remains fragile, and there are risks and traps lurking around the corner.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Britain going bankrupt?

Concerns that the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is considering tax hikes could weigh on consumer confidence, at a time when businesses are already scaling back hiring because of national insurance tax hikes.

Inflation is also expected to climb in the second half of the year, further weighing on consumers and businesses.

Continue Reading

Trending